|
On August 10 2012 22:59 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 22:55 Ragnarork wrote:On August 10 2012 22:50 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:40 Ragnarork wrote:
"The elephant in the room", or in other words "how to tear down in 2 pieces what could have been a great family otherwise".
Oh, well... nvm, seems thrashing each other's game seems to be the trend...
Seriously, I don't care that BW pros over-dominate the scene or not (currently, they aren't at all...), i'll look forward a great community, great players and great matches...
I really don't like this article. I mean, wth, according to its logic, ForGG should've been quite dominating in SC2 since he's won an MSL and no other SC2 players from BW did even reached Ro32 (or Ro16) in BW tournaments... And yet, he's never got past Code S Ro32... Does that mean that it's impossible for BW pros to dominate ? No. But come on, they won't automatically dominate either... Just because ForGG ended up not crushing is in no way in contrast with the article. Sure, it does not further the elephant in any way, but in the article it was mentioned that they have the potential to dominate. Potential. Not automatic domination. I have a problem with this then because talking about potential is quite ultra-safe. If it comes true "Ha I said it", and if it's proven wrong "Meh, they didn't transform that potential". Kinda win-win w/e is being said... But then I admit that ForGG isn't really the best example (according to the short sum-up above, I knew part of this, but I learned things also ^_^). Yeah, I don't think there's any reason to play with semantics. As a BW fan, I'm willing to put my foot down and claim the best of BW scene will dominate the top 20 players list of SC2 by end of year. If it doesn't happen, I'll admit the elephant is dead. I think that's a fair debate. Let's say 65% of the top 20 players list is Kespa players considered a win? And glad the ForGG summary was informative :D
"I am saying that there are 300 current pros and semi-pros that have the potential to come in and dominate SC2 at any moment, with a latency of a few months from the day they switch."
Quoted directly from the Elephant in the room article.
65% of the top 20 is not that the Elephant is talking about. 65% seem like a way more reasonable number. If all the top DotA players would switch to LoL I'd say they could also be 65% of the top because the game is more difficult. But simply because the game is more difficult doesn't mean they are going to take over the scene 100%, which is what the Elephant in the Room is talking about. They discredit MVP / Nestea / MC because they were not as good in BW and said they will be gone from the scene when the KeSPA players comes.
HotS will basically determine who the quickest adapters of all the RTS players in the world are. And then 1-2 years into it HotS it will show who the really solid RTS players are.
I embrace the KeSPA players because the more players with a huge fanbase who switch, is going to draw the fans to switch. Players like Grubby / Moon probably got a lot of WC3 fans to follow SC2. I want the game to be as big as possible.
|
These elephant conversations are so fucking boring for people who honestly do not give two shits about whether BW players come in to dominate. Why does anyone even care? BW players are good, SC2 players are good - if BW players turn out to be better than SC2 players, great, the level of competition increases.
This forum. Seriously read what you're arguing about.
|
On August 10 2012 23:16 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 22:58 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 22:51 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:48 DeCoder wrote:
To me the games with Leenock and RorO were about Leenock making mistakes and coming back through superior understanding of the game. Sadly for him he got behind too often and eventually lost. Leenock lost the match more so than RorO won it. Perhaps that speaks more about the level of GSL players if they always lose their games rather than their opponent winning. Because the matches were clearly the best Leenock has ever played. Sigh, can you stop trying to say that all GSL players are bad. I'm actually not saying they are bad. I just think that if everytime a GSL player loses, he plays bad, then maybe they were never actually that good.
You're pretty annoying, I'll give you that.
|
On August 10 2012 23:11 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 22:59 Simsallabin wrote:On August 10 2012 22:55 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 22:45 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:36 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 22:30 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 10 2012 22:27 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 21:53 Simsallabin wrote:On August 10 2012 21:48 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 21:43 Simsallabin wrote:
[quote]
Roro slapped Leenock with a Elephant Trunk of massive force. And all the other Kespa players are doing well, too... Oh, wait -.-; This tournament has already proven the elephant in the room article wrong. Drop this bullshit and focus on the games. I did focus on the game and what I saw was Roro using his trunk and slapping players left and right. Maybe he will loose at one point but still damn he's a sexy elephant. Tuut-tuut! That article suggested that BW players would dominate SC2 players en masse within months of switching. Since that hasn't happened, the "elephant in the room" is dead. We don't need all this elephant bullshit in every SC2 thread. EDIT: "More importantly, we are perfectly fine with Kespa pros needing as much as a year to dominate. As long as they dominate, they have proven their superiority. And they will." Wrong, after a year they will be no better than people like DJRecco bursting onto the scene  The last OSL just ended last week. And you talk about the elephant being dead? These guys are still playing 2 games. Roro was playing SC1 in proleague just this week. The article said within months of starting to play SC2. They've had that time. The article was wrong, the elephant is dead, shut the fuck up about it. EDIT: And don't mistake this as malice towards those players or BW. I hope they do change over and show us some good games. My point is that they haven't done what that article said they would (completely roflstomp everyone within months of switching) and so everyone should stop mentioning fucking elephants. But the elephant in the room was never that they would stomp within months. The elephant was that they are better than your MCs and Nesteas. The elephant is only defeated if your MCs and Nesteas remain competetive. Why is such a simple argument constantly misunderstood? I don't understand. Of course in the article it was stated that they could (at the time) come and potentially dominate within few months. But that was not the elephant. The elephant was that MCs and Nesteas are inferior. Wrong. The article suggested that the competition in SC2 was a farce because the MCs and Nesteas would get stomped by BW players within months of them switching. Their inferiority in BW was simply being used as evidence that this was the case. As it turns out, the BW pros haven't instantly roflstomped everyone after switching over, nor have they shown results vs. each other in SC2 that are relative to their BW skill levels (despite the BW players having had similar amounts of time with SC2). Both of these show that the article was bullshit. Now shut the fuck up about it and enjoy the games without bringing all this BW elitism into SC2 LR threads: It's worse than French people in LR threads involving Stephano, seriously -.-; But they havn't swapped games yet, they just playing few games of SC2 and owning nubs left and right, elephants rule my dear sir. Lucky we have Zotac Cup and other SC2 tournaments so all players can keep playing. They actually aren't, they just won a few matches here and there. The problem I have with the elephant theory right now is that the way kespa and GOM planned the transition makes it so the impact is softened throughout a long period of time, which makes it so the scenes mix and influence each other. Basically, when kespa players actually do well and the dust settles (most likely in a 50:50 distribution) it will be completely impossible to determine whether it is related at all with their BW background. And even then we'll have elephantists preaching their creed, it's looking bleak for LR threads, which is sad considering it could be a fun and healthy rivalry...
I don't see how it's bleak. This is nothing compared to the kind of shit fans used to talk every time JD and Bisu had a BoX. Now that was some hilarious vitriol. Or there was that brief flash in the pan when Shine advanced far into a starleague for the first time. Oh, the sheer concentration of venom from protoss fans at the 5hatch hydra busting noob chobo muta tech switcher. God, those were glorious times.
This is nothing. It's actually quite civil. You've got a good number of people talking sanely. There's just one English guy who keeps yelling at everyone to stfu about elephants. Without him it'd be a totally civil discussion.
|
How did I know roro would beat Leenock? Leenock was only good last November.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On August 10 2012 23:21 starception wrote:
How did I know roro would beat Leenock? Leenock was only good last November.
oh, be quiet brokenlol
|
On August 10 2012 23:16 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 22:58 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 22:51 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:48 DeCoder wrote:
To me the games with Leenock and RorO were about Leenock making mistakes and coming back through superior understanding of the game. Sadly for him he got behind too often and eventually lost. Leenock lost the match more so than RorO won it. Perhaps that speaks more about the level of GSL players if they always lose their games rather than their opponent winning. Because the matches were clearly the best Leenock has ever played. Sigh, can you stop trying to say that all GSL players are bad. I'm actually not saying they are bad. I just think that if everytime a GSL player loses, he plays bad, then maybe they were never actually that good.
.. That is very untrue.
"Fantasy lost to Jangbi in the OSL final to a DT rush. Fantasy played bad, which means all the BW players were never actually that good."
You are the perfect example a Brood War elitist. Leenock played nowhere near as good as he usual does. Every player has bad matches.
|
On August 10 2012 23:18 Trowa127 wrote:
These elephant conversations are so fucking boring for people who honestly do not give two shits about whether BW players come in to dominate. Why does anyone even care? BW players are good, SC2 players are good - if BW players turn out to be better than SC2 players, great, the level of competition increases.
This forum. Seriously read what you're arguing about.
No one is arguing, we are talking about SC2 on a SC2 forum 
|
On August 10 2012 23:14 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:08 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:55 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 22:45 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:36 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 22:30 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 10 2012 22:27 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 21:53 Simsallabin wrote:On August 10 2012 21:48 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 21:43 Simsallabin wrote:
[quote]
Roro slapped Leenock with a Elephant Trunk of massive force. And all the other Kespa players are doing well, too... Oh, wait -.-; This tournament has already proven the elephant in the room article wrong. Drop this bullshit and focus on the games. I did focus on the game and what I saw was Roro using his trunk and slapping players left and right. Maybe he will loose at one point but still damn he's a sexy elephant. Tuut-tuut! That article suggested that BW players would dominate SC2 players en masse within months of switching. Since that hasn't happened, the "elephant in the room" is dead. We don't need all this elephant bullshit in every SC2 thread. EDIT: "More importantly, we are perfectly fine with Kespa pros needing as much as a year to dominate. As long as they dominate, they have proven their superiority. And they will." Wrong, after a year they will be no better than people like DJRecco bursting onto the scene The last OSL just ended last week. And you talk about the elephant being dead? These guys are still playing 2 games. Roro was playing SC1 in proleague just this week. The article said within months of starting to play SC2. They've had that time. The article was wrong, the elephant is dead, shut the fuck up about it. EDIT: And don't mistake this as malice towards those players or BW. I hope they do change over and show us some good games. My point is that they haven't done what that article said they would (completely roflstomp everyone within months of switching) and so everyone should stop mentioning fucking elephants. But the elephant in the room was never that they would stomp within months. The elephant was that they are better than your MCs and Nesteas. The elephant is only defeated if your MCs and Nesteas remain competetive. Why is such a simple argument constantly misunderstood? I don't understand. Of course in the article it was stated that they could (at the time) come and potentially dominate within few months. But that was not the elephant. The elephant was that MCs and Nesteas are inferior. Wrong. The article suggested that the competition in SC2 was a farce because the MCs and Nesteas would get stomped by BW players within months of them switching. Their inferiority in BW was simply being used as evidence that this was the case. As it turns out, the BW pros haven't instantly roflstomped everyone after switching over, nor have they shown results vs. each other in SC2 that are relative to their BW skill levels (despite the BW players having had similar amounts of time with SC2). Both of these show that the article was bullshit. Now shut the fuck up about it and enjoy the games without bringing all this BW elitism into SC2 LR threads: It's worse than French people in LR threads involving Stephano, seriously -.-; Actually, you're wrong. The point the article tried to make is that Flash is simply better than MC, and since we have MC being the king, the competition is, well, what it is. At the time the level of play was so weak that people thought it would take only a few months to catch up. But this is not the elephant. The three months is merely something to emphasize the elephant, which is, that MC is inferior. Moreover, the assumption in the article was that it would be a full switch right at that time. Not a partial switch much later. If the elephant is what you say it is, then the truth value of it cannot even be checked. I don't really mind. All I think is that Kespa pros are more talented and have the better work ethic. Kind of like Wayne Gretzky was more talented than his peers along with working harder. And that is why they will dominate, and as long as they do, I'm satisfied. "I am saying that there are 300 current pros and semi-pros that have the potential to come in and dominate SC2 at any moment, with a latency of a few months from the day they switch." Remember that Moon still did well whilst playing both WC3 and SC2 and you'll realise that the BW players have no excuses if they really are ready to dominate 300 deep. Seriously... Bored now.
I don't recall Moon doing very well ever. He was okay at a time when Bitbybit was GSL level too. I think that is indeed good proof of the supriority of the BW scene (and only now we are seeing the best of that scene switching). Moreover, he has played the game full-time for a long time now and he isn't very good.
Also, as I've tried to explain in the past, when Intrigue said dominate, he didn't mean there are 300 players able to dominate MVP. That is because if MVP was a Kespa pro, he'd be included in those 300 players, therefore it doesn't make sense to say that the top 300 will be Kespa after they switch. What he meant is that there are 300 players able to play on the level of MCs and such. The A and S class are expected to of course push the level far higher.
|
Wooow nice RorO ! Impressing.
|
On August 10 2012 23:23 Simsallabin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:18 Trowa127 wrote:
These elephant conversations are so fucking boring for people who honestly do not give two shits about whether BW players come in to dominate. Why does anyone even care? BW players are good, SC2 players are good - if BW players turn out to be better than SC2 players, great, the level of competition increases.
This forum. Seriously read what you're arguing about. No one is arguing, we are talking about SC2 on a SC2 forum
No one is arguing, rofl. Read some of these posts. I just don't understand how the Elephant conversation overtakes conversation about the actual GAMES.
|
On August 10 2012 23:23 DrPandaPhD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:16 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:58 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 22:51 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:48 DeCoder wrote:
To me the games with Leenock and RorO were about Leenock making mistakes and coming back through superior understanding of the game. Sadly for him he got behind too often and eventually lost. Leenock lost the match more so than RorO won it. Perhaps that speaks more about the level of GSL players if they always lose their games rather than their opponent winning. Because the matches were clearly the best Leenock has ever played. Sigh, can you stop trying to say that all GSL players are bad. I'm actually not saying they are bad. I just think that if everytime a GSL player loses, he plays bad, then maybe they were never actually that good. .. That is very untrue. "Fantasy lost to Jangbi in the OSL final to a DT rush. Fantasy played bad, which means all the BW players were never actually that good." You are the perfect example a Brood War elitist. Leenock played nowhere near as good as he usual does. Every player has bad matches.
Lol Fantasy put up a good fight in Game 2 while JangBi played amazingly. But JangBi exploited Fantasy's weakness by taking away his greatest strength, the ability to Tornado Terran himself out of any situation. JangBi played a great counter by never letting Fantasy getting the gameplayed he planned.
Sure everyone have bad matches but truth still remains that Roro have beaten many of SC2 fan's favs.
|
On August 10 2012 23:23 DrPandaPhD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:16 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:58 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 22:51 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:48 DeCoder wrote:
To me the games with Leenock and RorO were about Leenock making mistakes and coming back through superior understanding of the game. Sadly for him he got behind too often and eventually lost. Leenock lost the match more so than RorO won it. Perhaps that speaks more about the level of GSL players if they always lose their games rather than their opponent winning. Because the matches were clearly the best Leenock has ever played. Sigh, can you stop trying to say that all GSL players are bad. I'm actually not saying they are bad. I just think that if everytime a GSL player loses, he plays bad, then maybe they were never actually that good. .. That is very untrue. "Fantasy lost to Jangbi in the OSL final to a DT rush. Fantasy played bad, which means all the BW players were never actually that good." You are the perfect example a Brood War elitist. Leenock played nowhere near as good as he usual does. Every player has bad matches.
Nice strawman. Of course people play bad, but when it seems to be the case (according to some) that everytime they lose, they played bad, then they probably never were that good anyway. And saying someone played bad is also often wrong. When Naniwa crumbled in his recent foreign tournament that was playing bad. Sometimes when you appear to play bad it's really only your opponent making you crumble.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On August 10 2012 23:26 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:23 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 23:16 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:58 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 22:51 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:48 DeCoder wrote:
To me the games with Leenock and RorO were about Leenock making mistakes and coming back through superior understanding of the game. Sadly for him he got behind too often and eventually lost. Leenock lost the match more so than RorO won it. Perhaps that speaks more about the level of GSL players if they always lose their games rather than their opponent winning. Because the matches were clearly the best Leenock has ever played. Sigh, can you stop trying to say that all GSL players are bad. I'm actually not saying they are bad. I just think that if everytime a GSL player loses, he plays bad, then maybe they were never actually that good. .. That is very untrue. "Fantasy lost to Jangbi in the OSL final to a DT rush. Fantasy played bad, which means all the BW players were never actually that good." You are the perfect example a Brood War elitist. Leenock played nowhere near as good as he usual does. Every player has bad matches. Lol Fantasy put up a good fight in Game 2 while JangBi played amazingly. But JangBi exploited Fantasy's weakness by taking away his greatest strength, the ability to Tornado Terran himself out of any situation. JangBi played a great counter by never letting Fantasy getting the gameplayed he planned. Sure everyone have bad matches but truth still remains that Roro have beaten many of SC2 fan's favs.
he's beaten like, two gsl players.
leenock is good but hack is pretty middling. so that last sentence is very off! =)
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On August 10 2012 23:27 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:23 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 23:16 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:58 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 22:51 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:48 DeCoder wrote:
To me the games with Leenock and RorO were about Leenock making mistakes and coming back through superior understanding of the game. Sadly for him he got behind too often and eventually lost. Leenock lost the match more so than RorO won it. Perhaps that speaks more about the level of GSL players if they always lose their games rather than their opponent winning. Because the matches were clearly the best Leenock has ever played. Sigh, can you stop trying to say that all GSL players are bad. I'm actually not saying they are bad. I just think that if everytime a GSL player loses, he plays bad, then maybe they were never actually that good. .. That is very untrue. "Fantasy lost to Jangbi in the OSL final to a DT rush. Fantasy played bad, which means all the BW players were never actually that good." You are the perfect example a Brood War elitist. Leenock played nowhere near as good as he usual does. Every player has bad matches. Nice strawman. Of course people play bad, but when it seems to be the case (according to some) that everytime they lose, they played bad, then they probably never were that good anyway. And saying someone played bad is also often wrong. When Naniwa crumbled in his recent foreign tournament that was playing bad. Sometimes when you appear to play bad it's really only your opponent making you crumble.
you were the one who suggested that when someone loses they played bad, not the other dude =)
|
On August 10 2012 23:25 Trowa127 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:23 Simsallabin wrote:On August 10 2012 23:18 Trowa127 wrote:
These elephant conversations are so fucking boring for people who honestly do not give two shits about whether BW players come in to dominate. Why does anyone even care? BW players are good, SC2 players are good - if BW players turn out to be better than SC2 players, great, the level of competition increases.
This forum. Seriously read what you're arguing about. No one is arguing, we are talking about SC2 on a SC2 forum No one is arguing, rofl. Read some of these posts. I just don't understand how the Elephant conversation overtakes conversation about the actual GAMES.
Think most just found it fun to troll that Sated guy (least I did) who got so angry about someone saying elephant
I couldn't care less who wins what I just enjoy good games and seeing some of the old BW players already showing some skill agaist players like Leenock makes me excited about the level we will see in 2013.
|
o poor leenock 
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On August 10 2012 23:24 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:14 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 23:08 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:55 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 22:45 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:36 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 22:30 StorkHwaiting wrote:On August 10 2012 22:27 Sated wrote:On August 10 2012 21:53 Simsallabin wrote:On August 10 2012 21:48 Sated wrote:
[quote]
And all the other Kespa players are doing well, too... Oh, wait -.-;
This tournament has already proven the elephant in the room article wrong. Drop this bullshit and focus on the games. I did focus on the game and what I saw was Roro using his trunk and slapping players left and right. Maybe he will loose at one point but still damn he's a sexy elephant. Tuut-tuut! That article suggested that BW players would dominate SC2 players en masse within months of switching. Since that hasn't happened, the "elephant in the room" is dead. We don't need all this elephant bullshit in every SC2 thread. EDIT: "More importantly, we are perfectly fine with Kespa pros needing as much as a year to dominate. As long as they dominate, they have proven their superiority. And they will." Wrong, after a year they will be no better than people like DJRecco bursting onto the scene The last OSL just ended last week. And you talk about the elephant being dead? These guys are still playing 2 games. Roro was playing SC1 in proleague just this week. The article said within months of starting to play SC2. They've had that time. The article was wrong, the elephant is dead, shut the fuck up about it. EDIT: And don't mistake this as malice towards those players or BW. I hope they do change over and show us some good games. My point is that they haven't done what that article said they would (completely roflstomp everyone within months of switching) and so everyone should stop mentioning fucking elephants. But the elephant in the room was never that they would stomp within months. The elephant was that they are better than your MCs and Nesteas. The elephant is only defeated if your MCs and Nesteas remain competetive. Why is such a simple argument constantly misunderstood? I don't understand. Of course in the article it was stated that they could (at the time) come and potentially dominate within few months. But that was not the elephant. The elephant was that MCs and Nesteas are inferior. Wrong. The article suggested that the competition in SC2 was a farce because the MCs and Nesteas would get stomped by BW players within months of them switching. Their inferiority in BW was simply being used as evidence that this was the case. As it turns out, the BW pros haven't instantly roflstomped everyone after switching over, nor have they shown results vs. each other in SC2 that are relative to their BW skill levels (despite the BW players having had similar amounts of time with SC2). Both of these show that the article was bullshit. Now shut the fuck up about it and enjoy the games without bringing all this BW elitism into SC2 LR threads: It's worse than French people in LR threads involving Stephano, seriously -.-; Actually, you're wrong. The point the article tried to make is that Flash is simply better than MC, and since we have MC being the king, the competition is, well, what it is. At the time the level of play was so weak that people thought it would take only a few months to catch up. But this is not the elephant. The three months is merely something to emphasize the elephant, which is, that MC is inferior. Moreover, the assumption in the article was that it would be a full switch right at that time. Not a partial switch much later. If the elephant is what you say it is, then the truth value of it cannot even be checked. I don't really mind. All I think is that Kespa pros are more talented and have the better work ethic. Kind of like Wayne Gretzky was more talented than his peers along with working harder. And that is why they will dominate, and as long as they do, I'm satisfied. "I am saying that there are 300 current pros and semi-pros that have the potential to come in and dominate SC2 at any moment, with a latency of a few months from the day they switch." Remember that Moon still did well whilst playing both WC3 and SC2 and you'll realise that the BW players have no excuses if they really are ready to dominate 300 deep. Seriously... Bored now. I don't recall Moon doing very well ever. He was okay at a time when Bitbybit was GSL level too. I think that is indeed good proof of the supriority of the BW scene (and only now we are seeing the best of that scene switching). Moreover, he has played the game full-time for a long time now and he isn't very good. Also, as I've tried to explain in the past, when Intrigue said dominate, he didn't mean there are 300 players able to dominate MVP. That is because if MVP was a Kespa pro, he'd be included in those 300 players, therefore it doesn't make sense to say that the top 300 will be Kespa after they switch. What he meant is that there are 300 players able to play on the level of MCs and such. The A and S class are expected to of course push the level far higher.
he didn't say very well, he said well. moon's done a pretty fair amount in sc2 and right now he definitely isn't bad.
also, dominate means dominate. mc is not dominate. dominate is a whole class above mc, mvp, etc.
|
On August 10 2012 23:26 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:23 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 23:16 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:58 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 22:51 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:48 DeCoder wrote:
To me the games with Leenock and RorO were about Leenock making mistakes and coming back through superior understanding of the game. Sadly for him he got behind too often and eventually lost. Leenock lost the match more so than RorO won it. Perhaps that speaks more about the level of GSL players if they always lose their games rather than their opponent winning. Because the matches were clearly the best Leenock has ever played. Sigh, can you stop trying to say that all GSL players are bad. I'm actually not saying they are bad. I just think that if everytime a GSL player loses, he plays bad, then maybe they were never actually that good. .. That is very untrue. "Fantasy lost to Jangbi in the OSL final to a DT rush. Fantasy played bad, which means all the BW players were never actually that good." You are the perfect example a Brood War elitist. Leenock played nowhere near as good as he usual does. Every player has bad matches. Lol Fantasy put up a good fight in Game 2 while JangBi played amazingly. But JangBi exploited Fantasy's weakness by taking away his greatest strength, the ability to Tornado Terran himself out of any situation. JangBi played a great counter by never letting Fantasy getting the gameplayed he planned. Sure everyone have bad matches but truth still remains that Roro have beaten many of SC2 fan's favs.
In game 2 yeah. That was not game 4. Leenock has shown sick matches as well. Like vs DRG in the GSTL final. The guy used this match as an argument to say that all GSL players are bad. Which I just answered because in was incorrect.
|
On August 10 2012 23:29 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:27 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 23:23 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 23:16 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:58 DrPandaPhD wrote:On August 10 2012 22:51 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 22:48 DeCoder wrote:
To me the games with Leenock and RorO were about Leenock making mistakes and coming back through superior understanding of the game. Sadly for him he got behind too often and eventually lost. Leenock lost the match more so than RorO won it. Perhaps that speaks more about the level of GSL players if they always lose their games rather than their opponent winning. Because the matches were clearly the best Leenock has ever played. Sigh, can you stop trying to say that all GSL players are bad. I'm actually not saying they are bad. I just think that if everytime a GSL player loses, he plays bad, then maybe they were never actually that good. .. That is very untrue. "Fantasy lost to Jangbi in the OSL final to a DT rush. Fantasy played bad, which means all the BW players were never actually that good." You are the perfect example a Brood War elitist. Leenock played nowhere near as good as he usual does. Every player has bad matches. Nice strawman. Of course people play bad, but when it seems to be the case (according to some) that everytime they lose, they played bad, then they probably never were that good anyway. And saying someone played bad is also often wrong. When Naniwa crumbled in his recent foreign tournament that was playing bad. Sometimes when you appear to play bad it's really only your opponent making you crumble. you were the one who suggested that when someone loses they played bad, not the other dude =)
Actually I didn't. I was simply making a point about claiming GSL players only lose because they played bad (as in not as good as they usually do). If each loss is due to them playing bad then maybe they're not that good. Of course I don't think they lost because they played bad at all. Reading comprehension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
