|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On August 10 2012 23:34 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:29 opterown wrote: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.
noone ever said "gsl players only lose cos they don't play as well as they usually do," and it's not that common either. i'm sure bw fans will claim in bw games that some losses are due to "not playing as well as they can," too
you may want to keep that attitude in check too =)
|
On August 10 2012 23:32 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:24 Squeegy wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Not bad but nothing special. Average Korean zerg.
Dominate might mean dominate, but what Intrigue meant by dominate is something different. It is easy to understand what he meant by it if you actually read what he wrote. Intrigue knows very well that there were not 300 BW pros and semipros who are better than MVP. Why would he say someone who is inferior to MVP in BW would dominate MVP in SC2? Can you answer that?
|
If you have two groups of GSL and KeSPA players facing each other then evidently sometimes KeSPA players will win. This will even hold if the best KeSPA player is worse than the worst GSL player. This is simply because of volatility and people having bad days, so every time someone lost he might just have been playing bad. It becomes funny when the excuse is constantly given that "this win is meaningless because he played bad", but that can actually be the case. Because we only notice the examples where the KeSPA player won.
Isn't intrigue female btw?
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On August 10 2012 23:36 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:32 opterown wrote:On August 10 2012 23:24 Squeegy wrote: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:[quote] 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. Not bad but nothing special. Average Korean zerg. Dominate might mean dominate, but what Intrigue meant by dominate is something different. It is easy to understand what he meant by it if you actually read what he wrote. Intrigue knows very well that there were not 300 BW pros and semipros who are better than MVP. Why would he say someone who is inferior to MVP in BW would dominate MVP in SC2? Can you answer that?
i read what he wrote =)
and i would say that there are probably hundreds of bw pros better than mc and nestea and mkp were at bw. are all those players going to dominate mc? =)
|
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.
FXO Fan Boy I think Leenock like Gumiho who is still good but doesn't deserve CODE S. Today his play is good but isn't good enough. That 's all.
|
On August 10 2012 23:36 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:34 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 23:29 opterown wrote: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. noone ever said "gsl players only lose cos they don't play as well as they usually do," and it's not that common either. i'm sure bw fans will claim in bw games that some losses are due to "not playing as well as they can," too you may want to keep that attitude in check too =)
Actually, you are wrong. Pretty much everytime a GSL player has lost, you've seen people saying that they played bad. One guy went as far as to say that every single game a GSL players lost was due to them playing below their normal level. Sure people play bad, but it gets funny when its said everytime they lose.
|
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.
After this season of PL ends there won't be BW progamers any more . The terms BW vs SC2 progamer is stupid , because first of all most of the top korean players in GSL were BW progamers to begin with . Now it's just a rivalry between the organizations Kespa and eSports Federations .
People who read the Elephant in the room article miss the most crucial words "Have the potential to ..." . It doesn't meen that they will necessarily dominate , but they do have the potential to based on the facts stated in the article . I think the article was very well written , even though Intrigue was a bit harsh on the SC2 scene at that time calling it a farce . I still agree with everything the article tried to point out and right now we see it being accomplished with the top progamers , while not dominating it took them 3 months to get to the level of those progamers who switched first .
SC2 fans just couldn't comprehend it , with most of you who didn't know the heigths and pеаks that the BW scene had accomplished in Korea in skill level, professionalism and popularity . For the SC2 fans it just meant that he was trying to point out that BW is a better game then SC2 , while he was trying to point out that the more talented or hardworking players stayed with BW do to higher popularity in korea , while the other players who didn't want to keep struggling with BW and foresaw that with great advertising worldwide from Blizzard and do to match fixing scandal BW will eventually be replaced by SC2 . I don't blame both parties for doing what they did .
Basically it all started when BW fans said that SC2 is an easy game compared to BW . While the newer SC2 fans who were not fans of BW said that BW has a bad engine and graphics and it needs to die faster . The article just added oil to the fire . It was written by a BW veteran who knew the RTS level of BW progamers and based it on results in BW , while he was harsh to the players who switched do to not having success in BW . SC2 fans didn't comprehend it and all hell broke loose after that .
|
I think it's telling when SC2 fans start grasping at straws like trying to claim BW needs to 100% dominate every single aspect of SC2 scene for this so-called elephant to be real. The point is SC2's top players were all on shaky ground the second Kespa switched over. Babbling semantics changes nothing. In a few months, if all the big names in the scene are BW names, you know the deal. There's no point sitting here quibbling about what Intrigue meant or didn't mean with absurdly stupid shit like 300 or 200 blah blah. I doubt you can even name 200 sc2 pros. We'll see in the next 3-6 months who ends up on top. Most BW fans are betting on TBLS and co.
|
On August 10 2012 23:38 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 23:36 Squeegy wrote:On August 10 2012 23:32 opterown wrote:On August 10 2012 23:24 Squeegy wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not bad but nothing special. Average Korean zerg. Dominate might mean dominate, but what Intrigue meant by dominate is something different. It is easy to understand what he meant by it if you actually read what he wrote. Intrigue knows very well that there were not 300 BW pros and semipros who are better than MVP. Why would he say someone who is inferior to MVP in BW would dominate MVP in SC2? Can you answer that? i read what he wrote =) and i would say that there are probably hundreds of bw pros better than mc was at bw. are all those layers going to dominate mc? =)
But he didn't speak solely of MC. He spoke of all of them. Including MVP. Many of them were on the level of those 300 in BW. It is pretty obvious that what he meant is that 300 players able to dominate like they dominate. Not dominate them. A and S class are of course expected to dominate them as well.
|
Remember that Moon still did well whilst playing both WC3 and SC2 and you'll realise that the BW players have no excuses Did you just put the competition in WC3 at the same level of that in BW?  Awwww, cute.
|
|
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 22:59 StorkHwaiting wrote: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 yeah okay :D i'll take that wager! willing to bet my pride that the "top 20" sc2 pros will be >=65% composed of non-kespa players (as in players who 'recently' switched under kespa). and also that the "top 3" sc2 pros will be all non-kespa players too
On August 10 2012 23:12 opterown wrote:specific quote: Show nested quote +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. take that as you will. i'm going to take dominate = top 5 in race the problem lies in "from the day that they switch" there is no switch, it's just gradual. so hard to say really; and people can interpret this as they will as well. for my own sake, i'll take "the day they switch" as the finals of SPL. so my latency period is the end of this year (which will be a few months after SPL ends, plus the few months they played SC2 part-time). if they're not dominating (top 5 players in race) then i'm going to think the statement wrong. otherwise, i reserve my judgement for now.
this is my final stance on the matter =)
|
I agree with opterown.
It's like this at the moment:
Theory is true means: switch -> domination
Theory is not means: switch -> no domination
The assumption is there is a switch. Why are people still debating wether the theory is true or not when the theory is at this moment not applicable?
In time (no bw anymore), we may be able to say more.
I say may, because there is a grey area between dominating and not dominating.
|
On August 10 2012 23:55 Yorbon wrote:
I agree with opterown.
It's like this at the moment:
Theory is true means: switch -> domination
Theory is not means: switch -> no domination
The assumption is there is a switch. Why are people still debating wether the theory is true or not when the theory is at this moment not applicable?
In time (no bw anymore), we may be able to say more.
I say may, because there is a grey area between dominating and not dominating.
It's because they are so afraid of the elephant that they try to brush it off by any means possible, no matter how illogical. At least that is why I think it is.
|
United States15275 Posts
ZvZ always seems to be the bane of Leenock's existence.
|
On August 11 2012 00:12 CosmicSpiral wrote:
ZvZ always seems to be the bane of Leenock's existence.
Stats-wise,ZvZ is Leenock best match-up.
|
United States97274 Posts
D: Leenock you were playing so well recently. How could you lose >.> Grats to rorO are in order I suppose. The other games went pretty much as I expected
|
RORO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Tris 'elephant' discussion is pretty damn pointless. I'm just happy that Khan is carrying the Kespa teams :D
|
RUH ROH!! Did i miss something? :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
