|
On May 18 2019 05:06 Pandain wrote:
Being the best player in the world for half a year, and proving it again and again and again with all expectations on you, just simply exceeds Classic's incredible consistency (on a lower scale) over the past six year
It's a matter of philosophy towards greatness but it's my own personal take.
I guess Jeremy Lin had a hell of a career to you. Plenty of people argue Maru was the best player that year anyways.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On May 18 2019 04:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 01:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 18 2019 01:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 00:50 Ej_ wrote:On May 18 2019 00:46 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 00:09 Yonnua wrote:
Imagining WCS are worth half a Code S, Classic and Serral are pretty close in achievements.
They definitely aren't worth half a Code S: beating Maru once is much better than beating Showtime twice; beating Maru, soO, TY, Dark, and sOs is much better than beating Denver, Jonsnow, Namshar, Lambo, and Reynor twice. It's much easier to beat lots of lower-skill players than it is to beat one higher-skill player, so the value of tournaments increases exponentially with the skill of the players competing. If Serral had a hot year, but had been competing in the GSL for 5 years and consistently failing I’d put Classic ahead of him, because Serral would have failed over a period where the two can directly be compared. You do realize that Classic was winning a GSL when Serral was an up and comer close to a nobody, right? And you're saying they can't be compared, because while Classic was a household name in Code S, Serral was busy being a tier 3 foreigner? Well yes? Nobody counts say Maru’s years of doing basically nothing of note against him, they judge him based on his results since he matured as a top tier pro-gamer How do you compare players who are at the twilight of their careers vs someone who is potentially years away from that point on longevity without the older player just winning by default. What do you mean noone counts maru's years basically doing nothing? Yes that is exactly what one does when one looks simply at all the results, there simply are none in these years, that's it. Yes the player with the better career at the point one compares these two players wins by default, ridiculous i know! Serral might have a better career in 5 years from now, or he might not. We don't know, any evaluation based on future results is imaginary and thus useless. And judging it on past results which Serral cannot by default have due to his age and circumstances (such as not being Korean) are not somewhat useless? And generally no players don’t judge Maru for his results at the beginning of WoL for example in most of these discussions, people also don’t tend to factor in how bad the Kespa players initially were, and IMO very reasonably in doing so. I mean basically Serral loses basically by default to any number of GSL regulars if it’s weighted that way, probably about 25+ players. I don’t think that really feels right vs Serral’s stellar 2018, still pretty damn good 2018 thus far and some of his 2017 runs. And if we’re doing results over 5+ years of play, then all of Classic’s failures in the Ro32 or any missed qualifications are fair game as well, which haven’t even really appeared here at all yet.
Maru is in this weird situation where is age give him a pass for sucking balls in his first 2 and a half years as a pro, but as far as Kespa player I personally do try to count it in, for example INnovation, Rain, Soulkey or soO were amazing SC2 player right of the bat it's quite impresive to me how they were able to dominate the game that crazy quick (hell Rain won his first sc2 tournaments over MKP, Parting and DRG after like 4 months of play). While other, Classic for example, were quite bad at first, despite sometime being solid BW player.
|
On May 18 2019 02:20 Xain0n wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 01:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 18 2019 01:25 Xain0n wrote:On May 18 2019 00:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 18 2019 00:04 Xain0n wrote:On May 17 2019 23:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 23:24 Xain0n wrote:On May 17 2019 23:20 Charoisaur wrote:On May 17 2019 21:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 17 2019 21:10 Charoisaur wrote:
[quote]
If Serral fanboys vote him over Classic they will vote for him against Inno too.
At this point the votes have just turned into a popularity contest. What fanboys? I think most of the people who at least posted here, not necessarily those that all voted in Serral vs Classic had pretty decent rationales for how they voted that came down to how they weighted certain things. Via my own weighting that I’ve laid out in the thread Inno wins this one easily, his peak level is comparable if not even higher and he’s also won more, over a longer period. As well as recently beating Serral in a tournament final. I don’t think it’s fair to put it down to blind fanboyism at all.l, as I said myself it was a 51-49 kind of decision for me. He’s won the biggest tournament in the game, and apparently (was posted here and was news to me) has the best winning match streak vs Koreans in the game’s history. There’s little more he can do, outside of go go GSL in future and be called a failure if he doesn’t win the first one he enters by the other side of the fanboy coin. I’d personally love to see another contender over in the best SC2 tournament there is, but I don’t think it’s a prerequisite for him to win this matchup. If being consistently good in the GSL is the weighting then Serral immediately loses any head to head vs guys who’ve been playing in Korean Starleagues for 5+ years immediately, by default. He’ll lose to Dark for example, despite knocking him out of 3 tournaments in the 2018/19 span. I’ll take Serral fanboyism because at least it’s fingers-in-the-ears and he won Blizzcon end of discussion rationales. Korean elitists the yardsticks continually shift between level of play, or cumulative achievement, or prestige whenever it suits an argument. So he needs to play GSL because it’s the highest level of play, but when my ultimate decision over Classic is that I think Serral’s peak level of play is higher, then it’s something else. SuperTournament > GSL vs the World, for some reason, despite the latter having a bigger purse and also the added motivation of Korean pride in stopping the foreigners winning, which is absolutely a thing Korean progamers mention themselves. Which could be a tournament almost specifically designed to give us more Serral vs the best of GSL games to o off and one whose existence I like, despite some flaws IMO in how the spots are filled. The_Red Viper has laid it down pretty well. Classic has objectively better achievements in his career and I haven't heard a "decent rationale" that makes it seem reasonable to vote for Serral. WCS victories being worth more than zero, but you cannot accept this; pointless to argue, then. You still didn't get the point of not lining them up there huh? I never said they are worth zero, nor did i imply it. I actually did the opposite, i asked you to argue the case that the wcs events are enough to close the gap. So far nothing, i am not surprised by it either because it would most likely be a hilariously bad argument. Ignoring a losing battle is not a bad strategy though, i'll give you that. Serral has more Premier titles, more Major victories(notably HSC), a higher peak, a better streak and, unlike Classic, he was the uncontested best player in the world for a certain period; he obviously could not play in Proleague but it's not like Classic was outstanding in that regard. On his side, Classic has more placements in prestigious Premier tournaments and the fact he played against harder opponents on average; how precisely harder Classic's opponents were is in fact the key of this discussion, but that's hard set objective criteria in order to find this out. Imagining WCS are worth half a Code S, Classic and Serral are pretty close in achievements. Why do you name things serral has more of? Why don't we just look at their holistic (well in this case ro8 and better, offline only, which seems reasonable?) career? You say people neglect the wcs results and say they are worth nothing, when in fact you ignore results of other players to make serral look superior. Can we agree that we simply have to look at their body of work and weigh it up to more or less come to a reasonable conclusion? Higher peak and better streak would already be part of this approach btw, you don't get to add the same thing twice just because you phrase it a little differently. What's next? Higher elo on aligulac, better streak vs zerg players, more interviews with smix. No, all of that is already part of the results we would look at, at best it is some trivia. Ok let's say wcs is worth half of code s, your choice! (i'd disagree with it probably, but hey why not). Then let's say that starleagues are about the same as blizzcon and katowice, every other tournament with top koreans is somewhere between wcs and the highest lvl. (wesg as a wcs event, it has weaker foreigners + top foreigners + 3 top koreans) A win is worth X points, 2nd place 50%, ro4 25%, ro8 12.5% (one could argue about these values ofc, but just to make a point now). gsl lvl: win 10pts , 5, 2.5, 1.25 2nd tier: 7.5 pts, 3.75, 1.875, 0.9375 wcs lvl: 5pts, 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 For serral we get:
wcs lvl: ro8: 3 -> 3 x 0.625 = 1.875 ro4: 1 -> 1.25 2nd: 2 -> 2 x 2.5 = 5 1st: 4 -> 4 x 5 = 20 total of 28.125 2nd tier lvl: ro8: 1 -> 0.9375 ro4: 0 -> 0 2nd: 0 -> 0 1st: 1 -> 7.5 total of 8.4375 gsl lvl: ro8: 2 -> 2 x 1.25 = 2.5 ro4: 1 -> 2.5 2nd: 0 -> 0 1st: 1 -> 10 total of 15 pts Serral gets a grand total of 51.5625 pts.
gsl lvl: win 10pts , 5, 2.5, 1.25 2nd tier: 7.5 pts, 3.75, 1.875, 0.9375 wcs lvl: 5pts, 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 For classic we get: wcs lvl: ro8: 0 -> 0 ro4: 1 -> 1.25 2nd: 0 -> 0 1st: 0 -> 0 total of 1.25 pts 2nd tier lvl: ro8: 5 -> 5 x 0.9375 = 4.6875 ro4: 2 -> 2 x 1.875 = 3.75 2nd: 0 -> 0 1st: 3 -> 3 x 7.5 = 22.5 total of 30.9375 gsl lvl tier: ro8: 3 -> 3 x 1.25 = 3.75 ro4: 6 -> 6 x 2.5 = 15 2nd: 2 -> 2 x 5 = 10 1st: 2 -> 2 x 10 = 20 total of 48.75 Classic gets a grand total of 80.9375 pts I realize that this is just a very broad outline, but notice how basically all of these values are in favor of serral. WCS being half of the highest lvl is a very optimistic outlook, 1st place being worth way more than the others also favors serral due to him winning most things. There are also no teamleague successes involved either, which would only push classic more. If i made some mistake i am sorry, but i doubt it would be crucial. One could theorically have a better streak of matches without having a higher peak(tied to tournament titles). Classic wasn't much of a Teamleague player, anyway, while Serral did very well for Finland in Nation Wars, so I'm not sure Classic would come out ahead in this regard. At a glance I feel like you missed out something and I do not completely agree abot your rating system, but it's decent; the main difference is that I follow Liquipedia by not considering ro8 results while taking into consideration Major titles and that's big in the Classic vs Serral scenario. That is very theoretical, but that isn't even the point. The point is that all factors you can name are already part of the results we are looking at. Thus it's trivia. Classic was a good proleague player: Under these filters, Classic is 65–42 (60.75%) in games and 65–42 (60.75%) in matches. I don't even agree with my rating system, i think it rates wcs too highly and puts too much emphasis on winning. Both things which help serral. I simply used it for simplicity sake and because you said wcs half of gsl, and even then serral loses out by a big margin. That's not true. We just are looking at results, not how they were obtained; you could win the same tournaments Serral did dropping one series per groupstages, his huge streak is a plus. That Proleague record is good, not outstanding, he doesn't even make top 10; and of course I am not comparing Nation Wars to Proleague, I am pointing out Serral had very good results in the only team league he took part in. You took my input then you developed it under your own criteria, if you include ro8 placements(debatable, to me) Classic is probably ahead, very much so if you don't take Major victories into consideration.
Ok it is true that one could theoretically win all that stuff while not having that streak. But how much is it really worth to have it when the end results are the same? Starcraft is played to win tournaments, not to have the longest streak. It is nice trivia, it might be worthwhile to consider to a very small degree, but overall it's not that important by any means.
The proleague record is good, classic won proleague twice. Did he hardcarry? No! But he played in the most prestigious teamleague and did well. That's something serral didn't do, it is a clear and simple achievement classic has over serral.
I took your input (which is incredibly serral favored), then developed a simple system (which was in itself also serral favored) to add everything up and even under these conditions classic was ahead easily. What do you actually disagree with there? You mention major tournaments which is grasping at straws, i'd even include the homestory cup win as a 2nd tier premier win if that would make you happy, wouldn't change anything about it though.
Why shouldn't ro8s be considered? That is the playoff stage at tournaments, it makes a lot of sense to include that and as you could see, it was only worth 1/8 of a tournament win anyway. Honestly this whole simplistic system was stacked in favor of serral and he still comes out behind (i actually didn't outright know who would win with this 1wcs = 1/2 gsl nonsense, but i was still kinda confident because classic's body of work is simply so much more impressive, and as it tunred out it is!)
On May 18 2019 04:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 01:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 18 2019 01:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 00:50 Ej_ wrote:On May 18 2019 00:46 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 00:09 Yonnua wrote:
Imagining WCS are worth half a Code S, Classic and Serral are pretty close in achievements.
They definitely aren't worth half a Code S: beating Maru once is much better than beating Showtime twice; beating Maru, soO, TY, Dark, and sOs is much better than beating Denver, Jonsnow, Namshar, Lambo, and Reynor twice. It's much easier to beat lots of lower-skill players than it is to beat one higher-skill player, so the value of tournaments increases exponentially with the skill of the players competing. If Serral had a hot year, but had been competing in the GSL for 5 years and consistently failing I’d put Classic ahead of him, because Serral would have failed over a period where the two can directly be compared. You do realize that Classic was winning a GSL when Serral was an up and comer close to a nobody, right? And you're saying they can't be compared, because while Classic was a household name in Code S, Serral was busy being a tier 3 foreigner? Well yes? Nobody counts say Maru’s years of doing basically nothing of note against him, they judge him based on his results since he matured as a top tier pro-gamer How do you compare players who are at the twilight of their careers vs someone who is potentially years away from that point on longevity without the older player just winning by default. What do you mean noone counts maru's years basically doing nothing? Yes that is exactly what one does when one looks simply at all the results, there simply are none in these years, that's it. Yes the player with the better career at the point one compares these two players wins by default, ridiculous i know! Serral might have a better career in 5 years from now, or he might not. We don't know, any evaluation based on future results is imaginary and thus useless. And judging it on past results which Serral cannot by default have due to his age and circumstances (such as not being Korean) are not somewhat useless? And generally no players don’t judge Maru for his results at the beginning of WoL for example in most of these discussions, people also don’t tend to factor in how bad the Kespa players initially were, and IMO very reasonably in doing so. I mean basically Serral loses basically by default to any number of GSL regulars if it’s weighted that way, probably about 25+ players. I don’t think that really feels right vs Serral’s stellar 2018, still pretty damn good 2018 thus far and some of his 2017 runs. And if we’re doing results over 5+ years of play, then all of Classic’s failures in the Ro32 or any missed qualifications are fair game as well, which haven’t even really appeared here at all yet.
No it is in fact not useless, it is based on merit, the achievements of the player. How is that useless? Why do you try to find serral favored outcomes so badly? I don't try and find classic favored ones, i simply try to look at their careers holistically, that's kinda what ones does to evaluate a player's career.
People judge maru's achievements, all of them. That includes the early years. Now if you want to say that noone looks at it as a negative, well yes that is true and neither do we for serral. It simply means they had no good results, so it doesn't appear on the list for achievements.
Yeah losing by defaults on a list which tries to look at players' career is kinda normal if you just started having good results, that isn't unfair that is just how this works. How would it make any sense to rate someone higher despite the lack of achievements, just because he just started?
Imagine a player who starts playing in the professional scene, wins a wcs event. Then doesn't compete until blizzcon because he studies or whatever, wins blizzcon and then retires. No that person isn't the greatest of all time (even though it would be an insane thing to happen), you cannot just imagine his future career and pretend your imaginary simulation means anything.
Because noone looks at a players career and gives negative points for failures, failures are indirectly already part of the equation in the first place. If you fail you don't succeed ergo you have less achievements.
|
Northern Ireland24932 Posts
On May 18 2019 06:24 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 04:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 01:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 18 2019 01:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 00:50 Ej_ wrote:On May 18 2019 00:46 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 00:09 Yonnua wrote:
Imagining WCS are worth half a Code S, Classic and Serral are pretty close in achievements.
They definitely aren't worth half a Code S: beating Maru once is much better than beating Showtime twice; beating Maru, soO, TY, Dark, and sOs is much better than beating Denver, Jonsnow, Namshar, Lambo, and Reynor twice. It's much easier to beat lots of lower-skill players than it is to beat one higher-skill player, so the value of tournaments increases exponentially with the skill of the players competing. If Serral had a hot year, but had been competing in the GSL for 5 years and consistently failing I’d put Classic ahead of him, because Serral would have failed over a period where the two can directly be compared. You do realize that Classic was winning a GSL when Serral was an up and comer close to a nobody, right? And you're saying they can't be compared, because while Classic was a household name in Code S, Serral was busy being a tier 3 foreigner? Well yes? Nobody counts say Maru’s years of doing basically nothing of note against him, they judge him based on his results since he matured as a top tier pro-gamer How do you compare players who are at the twilight of their careers vs someone who is potentially years away from that point on longevity without the older player just winning by default. What do you mean noone counts maru's years basically doing nothing? Yes that is exactly what one does when one looks simply at all the results, there simply are none in these years, that's it. Yes the player with the better career at the point one compares these two players wins by default, ridiculous i know! Serral might have a better career in 5 years from now, or he might not. We don't know, any evaluation based on future results is imaginary and thus useless. And judging it on past results which Serral cannot by default have due to his age and circumstances (such as not being Korean) are not somewhat useless? And generally no players don’t judge Maru for his results at the beginning of WoL for example in most of these discussions, people also don’t tend to factor in how bad the Kespa players initially were, and IMO very reasonably in doing so. I mean basically Serral loses basically by default to any number of GSL regulars if it’s weighted that way, probably about 25+ players. I don’t think that really feels right vs Serral’s stellar 2018, still pretty damn good 2018 thus far and some of his 2017 runs. And if we’re doing results over 5+ years of play, then all of Classic’s failures in the Ro32 or any missed qualifications are fair game as well, which haven’t even really appeared here at all yet. Maru is in this weird situation where is age give him a pass for sucking balls in his first 2 and a half years as a pro, but as far as Kespa player I personally do try to count it in, for example INnovation, Rain, Soulkey or soO were amazing SC2 player right of the bat it's quite impresive to me how they were able to dominate the game that crazy quick (hell Rain won his first sc2 tournaments over MKP, Parting and DRG after like 4 months of play). While other, Classic for example, were quite bad at first, despite sometime being solid BW player.
Yeah it was damn impressive how quickly they got good, but my point was that kind of not counting the hybrid Proleague towards stats in SC2 Proleague is both an understandable and probably correct amount of slack to give.
Likewise Maru being really young, or kind of splitting a player’s career from when they were part time to a full time pro etc.
|
Northern Ireland24932 Posts
On May 18 2019 06:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 02:20 Xain0n wrote:On May 18 2019 01:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 18 2019 01:25 Xain0n wrote:On May 18 2019 00:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 18 2019 00:04 Xain0n wrote:On May 17 2019 23:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 17 2019 23:24 Xain0n wrote:On May 17 2019 23:20 Charoisaur wrote:On May 17 2019 21:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
[quote]
What fanboys? I think most of the people who at least posted here, not necessarily those that all voted in Serral vs Classic had pretty decent rationales for how they voted that came down to how they weighted certain things.
Via my own weighting that I’ve laid out in the thread Inno wins this one easily, his peak level is comparable if not even higher and he’s also won more, over a longer period. As well as recently beating Serral in a tournament final.
I don’t think it’s fair to put it down to blind fanboyism at all.l, as I said myself it was a 51-49 kind of decision for me.
He’s won the biggest tournament in the game, and apparently (was posted here and was news to me) has the best winning match streak vs Koreans in the game’s history.
There’s little more he can do, outside of go go GSL in future and be called a failure if he doesn’t win the first one he enters by the other side of the fanboy coin. I’d personally love to see another contender over in the best SC2 tournament there is, but I don’t think it’s a prerequisite for him to win this matchup.
If being consistently good in the GSL is the weighting then Serral immediately loses any head to head vs guys who’ve been playing in Korean Starleagues for 5+ years immediately, by default. He’ll lose to Dark for example, despite knocking him out of 3 tournaments in the 2018/19 span.
I’ll take Serral fanboyism because at least it’s fingers-in-the-ears and he won Blizzcon end of discussion rationales. Korean elitists the yardsticks continually shift between level of play, or cumulative achievement, or prestige whenever it suits an argument.
So he needs to play GSL because it’s the highest level of play, but when my ultimate decision over Classic is that I think Serral’s peak level of play is higher, then it’s something else.
SuperTournament > GSL vs the World, for some reason, despite the latter having a bigger purse and also the added motivation of Korean pride in stopping the foreigners winning, which is absolutely a thing Korean progamers mention themselves. Which could be a tournament almost specifically designed to give us more Serral vs the best of GSL games to o off and one whose existence I like, despite some flaws IMO in how the spots are filled.
The_Red Viper has laid it down pretty well. Classic has objectively better achievements in his career and I haven't heard a "decent rationale" that makes it seem reasonable to vote for Serral. WCS victories being worth more than zero, but you cannot accept this; pointless to argue, then. You still didn't get the point of not lining them up there huh? I never said they are worth zero, nor did i imply it. I actually did the opposite, i asked you to argue the case that the wcs events are enough to close the gap. So far nothing, i am not surprised by it either because it would most likely be a hilariously bad argument. Ignoring a losing battle is not a bad strategy though, i'll give you that. Serral has more Premier titles, more Major victories(notably HSC), a higher peak, a better streak and, unlike Classic, he was the uncontested best player in the world for a certain period; he obviously could not play in Proleague but it's not like Classic was outstanding in that regard. On his side, Classic has more placements in prestigious Premier tournaments and the fact he played against harder opponents on average; how precisely harder Classic's opponents were is in fact the key of this discussion, but that's hard set objective criteria in order to find this out. Imagining WCS are worth half a Code S, Classic and Serral are pretty close in achievements. Why do you name things serral has more of? Why don't we just look at their holistic (well in this case ro8 and better, offline only, which seems reasonable?) career? You say people neglect the wcs results and say they are worth nothing, when in fact you ignore results of other players to make serral look superior. Can we agree that we simply have to look at their body of work and weigh it up to more or less come to a reasonable conclusion? Higher peak and better streak would already be part of this approach btw, you don't get to add the same thing twice just because you phrase it a little differently. What's next? Higher elo on aligulac, better streak vs zerg players, more interviews with smix. No, all of that is already part of the results we would look at, at best it is some trivia. Ok let's say wcs is worth half of code s, your choice! (i'd disagree with it probably, but hey why not). Then let's say that starleagues are about the same as blizzcon and katowice, every other tournament with top koreans is somewhere between wcs and the highest lvl. (wesg as a wcs event, it has weaker foreigners + top foreigners + 3 top koreans) A win is worth X points, 2nd place 50%, ro4 25%, ro8 12.5% (one could argue about these values ofc, but just to make a point now). gsl lvl: win 10pts , 5, 2.5, 1.25 2nd tier: 7.5 pts, 3.75, 1.875, 0.9375 wcs lvl: 5pts, 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 For serral we get:
wcs lvl: ro8: 3 -> 3 x 0.625 = 1.875 ro4: 1 -> 1.25 2nd: 2 -> 2 x 2.5 = 5 1st: 4 -> 4 x 5 = 20 total of 28.125 2nd tier lvl: ro8: 1 -> 0.9375 ro4: 0 -> 0 2nd: 0 -> 0 1st: 1 -> 7.5 total of 8.4375 gsl lvl: ro8: 2 -> 2 x 1.25 = 2.5 ro4: 1 -> 2.5 2nd: 0 -> 0 1st: 1 -> 10 total of 15 pts Serral gets a grand total of 51.5625 pts.
gsl lvl: win 10pts , 5, 2.5, 1.25 2nd tier: 7.5 pts, 3.75, 1.875, 0.9375 wcs lvl: 5pts, 2.5, 1.25, 0.625 For classic we get: wcs lvl: ro8: 0 -> 0 ro4: 1 -> 1.25 2nd: 0 -> 0 1st: 0 -> 0 total of 1.25 pts 2nd tier lvl: ro8: 5 -> 5 x 0.9375 = 4.6875 ro4: 2 -> 2 x 1.875 = 3.75 2nd: 0 -> 0 1st: 3 -> 3 x 7.5 = 22.5 total of 30.9375 gsl lvl tier: ro8: 3 -> 3 x 1.25 = 3.75 ro4: 6 -> 6 x 2.5 = 15 2nd: 2 -> 2 x 5 = 10 1st: 2 -> 2 x 10 = 20 total of 48.75 Classic gets a grand total of 80.9375 pts I realize that this is just a very broad outline, but notice how basically all of these values are in favor of serral. WCS being half of the highest lvl is a very optimistic outlook, 1st place being worth way more than the others also favors serral due to him winning most things. There are also no teamleague successes involved either, which would only push classic more. If i made some mistake i am sorry, but i doubt it would be crucial. One could theorically have a better streak of matches without having a higher peak(tied to tournament titles). Classic wasn't much of a Teamleague player, anyway, while Serral did very well for Finland in Nation Wars, so I'm not sure Classic would come out ahead in this regard. At a glance I feel like you missed out something and I do not completely agree abot your rating system, but it's decent; the main difference is that I follow Liquipedia by not considering ro8 results while taking into consideration Major titles and that's big in the Classic vs Serral scenario. That is very theoretical, but that isn't even the point. The point is that all factors you can name are already part of the results we are looking at. Thus it's trivia. Classic was a good proleague player: Under these filters, Classic is 65–42 (60.75%) in games and 65–42 (60.75%) in matches. I don't even agree with my rating system, i think it rates wcs too highly and puts too much emphasis on winning. Both things which help serral. I simply used it for simplicity sake and because you said wcs half of gsl, and even then serral loses out by a big margin. That's not true. We just are looking at results, not how they were obtained; you could win the same tournaments Serral did dropping one series per groupstages, his huge streak is a plus. That Proleague record is good, not outstanding, he doesn't even make top 10; and of course I am not comparing Nation Wars to Proleague, I am pointing out Serral had very good results in the only team league he took part in. You took my input then you developed it under your own criteria, if you include ro8 placements(debatable, to me) Classic is probably ahead, very much so if you don't take Major victories into consideration. Ok it is true that one could theoretically win all that stuff while not having that streak. But how much is it really worth to have it when the end results are the same? Starcraft is played to win tournaments, not to have the longest streak. It is nice trivia, it might be worthwhile to consider to a very small degree, but overall it's not that important by any means. The proleague record is good, classic won proleague twice. Did he hardcarry? No! But he played in the most prestigious teamleague and did well. That's something serral didn't do, it is a clear and simple achievement classic has over serral. I took your input (which is incredibly serral favored), then developed a simple system (which was in itself also serral favored) to add everything up and even under these conditions classic was ahead easily. What do you actually disagree with there? You mention major tournaments which is grasping at straws, i'd even include the homestory cup win as a 2nd tier premier win if that would make you happy, wouldn't change anything about it though. Why shouldn't ro8s be considered? That is the playoff stage at tournaments, it makes a lot of sense to include that and as you could see, it was only worth 1/8 of a tournament win anyway. Honestly this whole simplistic system was stacked in favor of serral and he still comes out behind (i actually didn't outright know who would win with this 1wcs = 1/2 gsl nonsense, but i was still kinda confident because classic's body of work is simply so much more impressive, and as it tunred out it is!) Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 04:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 01:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 18 2019 01:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 00:50 Ej_ wrote:On May 18 2019 00:46 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 00:09 Yonnua wrote:
Imagining WCS are worth half a Code S, Classic and Serral are pretty close in achievements.
They definitely aren't worth half a Code S: beating Maru once is much better than beating Showtime twice; beating Maru, soO, TY, Dark, and sOs is much better than beating Denver, Jonsnow, Namshar, Lambo, and Reynor twice. It's much easier to beat lots of lower-skill players than it is to beat one higher-skill player, so the value of tournaments increases exponentially with the skill of the players competing. If Serral had a hot year, but had been competing in the GSL for 5 years and consistently failing I’d put Classic ahead of him, because Serral would have failed over a period where the two can directly be compared. You do realize that Classic was winning a GSL when Serral was an up and comer close to a nobody, right? And you're saying they can't be compared, because while Classic was a household name in Code S, Serral was busy being a tier 3 foreigner? Well yes? Nobody counts say Maru’s years of doing basically nothing of note against him, they judge him based on his results since he matured as a top tier pro-gamer How do you compare players who are at the twilight of their careers vs someone who is potentially years away from that point on longevity without the older player just winning by default. What do you mean noone counts maru's years basically doing nothing? Yes that is exactly what one does when one looks simply at all the results, there simply are none in these years, that's it. Yes the player with the better career at the point one compares these two players wins by default, ridiculous i know! Serral might have a better career in 5 years from now, or he might not. We don't know, any evaluation based on future results is imaginary and thus useless. And judging it on past results which Serral cannot by default have due to his age and circumstances (such as not being Korean) are not somewhat useless? And generally no players don’t judge Maru for his results at the beginning of WoL for example in most of these discussions, people also don’t tend to factor in how bad the Kespa players initially were, and IMO very reasonably in doing so. I mean basically Serral loses basically by default to any number of GSL regulars if it’s weighted that way, probably about 25+ players. I don’t think that really feels right vs Serral’s stellar 2018, still pretty damn good 2018 thus far and some of his 2017 runs. And if we’re doing results over 5+ years of play, then all of Classic’s failures in the Ro32 or any missed qualifications are fair game as well, which haven’t even really appeared here at all yet. No it is in fact not useless, it is based on merit, the achievements of the player. How is that useless? Why do you try to find serral favored outcomes so badly? I don't try and find classic favored ones, i simply try to look at their careers holistically, that's kinda what ones does to evaluate a player's career. People judge maru's achievements, all of them. That includes the early years. Now if you want to say that noone looks at it as a negative, well yes that is true and neither do we for serral. It simply means they had no good results, so it doesn't appear on the list for achievements. Yeah losing by defaults on a list which tries to look at players' career is kinda normal if you just started having good results, that isn't unfair that is just how this works. How would it make any sense to rate someone higher despite the lack of achievements, just because he just started? Imagine a player who starts playing in the professional scene, wins a wcs event. Then doesn't compete until blizzcon because he studies or whatever, wins blizzcon and then retires. No that person isn't the greatest of all time (even though it would be an insane thing to happen), you cannot just imagine his future career and pretend your imaginary simulation means anything. Because noone looks at a players career and gives negative points for failures, failures are indirectly already part of the equation in the first place. If you fail you don't succeed ergo you have less achievements.
It’s not a cumulative achievement list, or a consistency list, irs a greatness list. Those factor in but it’s not what’s being ranked.
It’ll be a factor in other matchups too, early innovators like Nestea or MC and players of that kind and how that stacks up vs the players in the span of the Kespa transition to now.
Some wins are better than others, streaks do factor in, level of play etc etc. Maru winning GSLs in a row, in really dominant fashion at times, and dominating TvP when other Terrans are struggling makes those better than if he’d won them across 5 years and less convincingly.
Also no Proleague really shouldn’t be is factor outside as a tiebreaker between players who competed in that tournament, given it doesn’t exist anymore, and wasn’t around for all that long, so plenty of players never had the chance to even try it.
And even factoring it, as mentioned in Classic was a solid, decent Proleague player, not that high in total wins or percentage, and not a monster ace like Inno or Maru. Solid, consistent but not one of the absolute greatest in that, basically exactly why some are favouring Serral over him in this matchup.
|
Just curious what you mean by plenty of players never had the chance to try Proleague? Everyone in GSL competed in Proleague.... If you mean the new foreigners then I guess that's true, but I don't think that's a reason to discount it (had EGTL too so it's not like no foreigners got to play). Proleague was a very important competition and it's a shame no one seems to value it anymore.
|
I think it's a close one between Classic and Serral but I would say Classic has more achievements (and he probably will expand his lead over Serral this year with how both are playing at the moment). I get that Serral has one of the greatest streaks against Koreans but I don't believe in judging the greatness of a player by their peak. For me, the most important things to look at when it comes to greatness are tournament placements and less importantly, team performance and win-rates against Koreans + Top foreigners. I think peaks are worth looking at but they don't serve as much more than a tiebreaker when it comes to ranking players.
|
Northern Ireland24932 Posts
On May 18 2019 09:43 Moonerz wrote:
Just curious what you mean by plenty of players never had the chance to try Proleague? Everyone in GSL competed in Proleague.... If you mean the new foreigners then I guess that's true, but I don't think that's a reason to discount it (had EGTL too so it's not like no foreigners got to play). Proleague was a very important competition and it's a shame no one seems to value it anymore.
Any progamer in Korea who’d fallen off by Proleague coming in, or wasn’t situated to participate for whatever reason. So your Nestea, Mvps, MCs, DRGs etc
I miss Proleague, I think it was great to see a prep format with the team element, was fantastic quality of play with lots of great games.
Shame it didn’t continue, you wouldn’t have even needed that many sponsored teams necessarily to keep it going, you could have lost a few possibly.
Could have had a foreigner team, and maybe a team of teamless, or non-Kespa team Koreans, maybe two.
I mean it’s pure spitballing, it’s a real shame though, it’s reasonably well set up for some of that stuff.
EG-TL would be worse than a modern foreigners united team because that team wasn’t the best actual players in the foreign scene at the time. A modern version might have a core of Scarlett, Special and folks like Neeb and Reynor
Which would have an added pull to foreigners and the GSL too, if they had a Proleague team to practice with, to compete for the prestige, well that’s more of a pull than moving out of WCS and going for GSL qualification or bust.
Bit of an off-topic mourning, but the scene really missed having a Proleague. There was so much added intrigue in teams having to factor in maps, potential matchups etc into their picks, prepping for marches and then who to pick for ace matches
|
Northern Ireland24932 Posts
On May 18 2019 10:03 Anc13nt wrote:
I think it's a close one between Classic and Serral but I would say Classic has more achievements (and he probably will expand his lead over Serral this year with how both are playing at the moment). I get that Serral has one of the greatest streaks against Koreans but I don't believe in judging the greatness of a player by their peak. For me, the most important things to look at when it comes to greatness are tournament placements and less importantly, team performance and win-rates against Koreans + Top foreigners. I think peaks are worth looking at but they don't serve as much more than a tiebreaker when it comes to ranking players.
How does Serral’s win-rate stack up against top Koreans vs Classic’s?
I don’t think it’s fair because I don’t think Serral got to play them until he’d learned his trade, whereas Classic was thrown in at the deep end in that sense.
I’m not going to trawl through it, intuitively I imagine Serral’s win rates are going to be much better in comparison. By probably quite a decent margin too.
We only have two tournaments to go on either, but I imagine Serral’s set differentiation is better than Classic’s as well in tournaments he won.
Again as I said I don’t think it’s fair to Classic in this instance, because you’re judging his results when he was getting to his best level along with his tournament results, whereas with Serral you’re judging his results against that opposition vs him kind of having reached his actual level.
But again I’m not sure why I’m even bothering giving caveats in that regard when other people don’t seem to be considering the possibility that their weighting means Serral auto-loses to any top 20 Kespa pro
|
On May 18 2019 10:16 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 10:03 Anc13nt wrote:
I think it's a close one between Classic and Serral but I would say Classic has more achievements (and he probably will expand his lead over Serral this year with how both are playing at the moment). I get that Serral has one of the greatest streaks against Koreans but I don't believe in judging the greatness of a player by their peak. For me, the most important things to look at when it comes to greatness are tournament placements and less importantly, team performance and win-rates against Koreans + Top foreigners. I think peaks are worth looking at but they don't serve as much more than a tiebreaker when it comes to ranking players. How does Serral’s win-rate stack up against top Koreans vs Classic’s? I don’t think it’s fair because I don’t think Serral got to play them until he’d learned his trade, whereas Classic was thrown in at the deep end in that sense. I’m not going to trawl through it, intuitively I imagine Serral’s win rates are going to be much better in comparison. By probably quite a decent margin too. We only have two tournaments to go on either, but I imagine Serral’s set differentiation is better than Classic’s as well in tournaments he won. Again as I said I don’t think it’s fair to Classic in this instance, because you’re judging his results when he was getting to his best level along with his tournament results, whereas with Serral you’re judging his results against that opposition vs him kind of having reached his actual level. But again I’m not sure why I’m even bothering giving caveats in that regard when other people don’t seem to be considering the possibility that their weighting means Serral auto-loses to any top 20 Kespa pro
I checked and Serral's winrate against koreans offline is 48.42% (it was like high 60% in 2018 though. Classic's is 60.38% (which is really high; I only recall Mvp, Life, Inno, sOs, and Rain having winrates nearly as high/higher but there's probably more). In fairness, that is really unfair to Serral so I would say looking at winrates is not nearly as important as tournament placements and for players like Serral, we need to account for the context of their winrate because they improved a lot over the years. Now that I think of it a bit more, I think that people should probably mainly discuss tournament achievements when it comes to greatness as that seems to be the only objective criteria that everyone agrees is important.
|
Bisutopia19225 Posts
I would like to hear more arguments as to how the quality of competition during 2018 was as good as the quality of players during Classic's peak. He was winning during an era where some of the other greats were thriving too. And if that's not something you believe can be discussed then what about the game being played. HoTS versus LoTV. Which version do we rate as the more skill demanding version.
|
On May 18 2019 11:13 BisuDagger wrote:
I would like to hear more arguments as to how the quality of competition during 2018 was as good as the quality of players during Classic's peak. He was winning during an era where some of the other greats were thriving too. And if that's not something you believe can be discussed then what about the game being played. HoTS versus LoTV. Which version do we rate as the more skill demanding version.
I'm not sure when Classic's peak is or even if there is really one that stands out. While his form has had a few ups and downs, he's been pretty regularly one of the best (though perhaps not the standalone best) since 2014. If he wins next GSL this will have been his peak.
|
On May 18 2019 10:45 Anc13nt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 10:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 10:03 Anc13nt wrote:
I think it's a close one between Classic and Serral but I would say Classic has more achievements (and he probably will expand his lead over Serral this year with how both are playing at the moment). I get that Serral has one of the greatest streaks against Koreans but I don't believe in judging the greatness of a player by their peak. For me, the most important things to look at when it comes to greatness are tournament placements and less importantly, team performance and win-rates against Koreans + Top foreigners. I think peaks are worth looking at but they don't serve as much more than a tiebreaker when it comes to ranking players. How does Serral’s win-rate stack up against top Koreans vs Classic’s? I don’t think it’s fair because I don’t think Serral got to play them until he’d learned his trade, whereas Classic was thrown in at the deep end in that sense. I’m not going to trawl through it, intuitively I imagine Serral’s win rates are going to be much better in comparison. By probably quite a decent margin too. We only have two tournaments to go on either, but I imagine Serral’s set differentiation is better than Classic’s as well in tournaments he won. Again as I said I don’t think it’s fair to Classic in this instance, because you’re judging his results when he was getting to his best level along with his tournament results, whereas with Serral you’re judging his results against that opposition vs him kind of having reached his actual level. But again I’m not sure why I’m even bothering giving caveats in that regard when other people don’t seem to be considering the possibility that their weighting means Serral auto-loses to any top 20 Kespa pro I checked and Serral's winrate against koreans offline is 48.42% (it was like high 60% in 2018 though. Classic's is 60.38% (which is really high; I only recall Mvp, Life, Inno, sOs, and Rain having winrates nearly as high/higher but there's probably more). In fairness, that is really unfair to Serral so I would say looking at winrates is not nearly as important as tournament placements and for players like Serral, we need to account for the context of their winrate because they improved a lot over the years. Now that I think of it a bit more, I think that people should probably mainly discuss tournament achievements when it comes to greatness as that seems to be the only objective criteria that everyone agrees is important.
You looked at map score, Serral had at least a 83% win ratio against koreans in offline series in 2018(if not 87%).
Also, it's not really meaningful to know he had a 6-27 record against koreans before 2017, is it?
|
On May 18 2019 11:29 Xain0n wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 10:45 Anc13nt wrote:On May 18 2019 10:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 10:03 Anc13nt wrote:
I think it's a close one between Classic and Serral but I would say Classic has more achievements (and he probably will expand his lead over Serral this year with how both are playing at the moment). I get that Serral has one of the greatest streaks against Koreans but I don't believe in judging the greatness of a player by their peak. For me, the most important things to look at when it comes to greatness are tournament placements and less importantly, team performance and win-rates against Koreans + Top foreigners. I think peaks are worth looking at but they don't serve as much more than a tiebreaker when it comes to ranking players. How does Serral’s win-rate stack up against top Koreans vs Classic’s? I don’t think it’s fair because I don’t think Serral got to play them until he’d learned his trade, whereas Classic was thrown in at the deep end in that sense. I’m not going to trawl through it, intuitively I imagine Serral’s win rates are going to be much better in comparison. By probably quite a decent margin too. We only have two tournaments to go on either, but I imagine Serral’s set differentiation is better than Classic’s as well in tournaments he won. Again as I said I don’t think it’s fair to Classic in this instance, because you’re judging his results when he was getting to his best level along with his tournament results, whereas with Serral you’re judging his results against that opposition vs him kind of having reached his actual level. But again I’m not sure why I’m even bothering giving caveats in that regard when other people don’t seem to be considering the possibility that their weighting means Serral auto-loses to any top 20 Kespa pro I checked and Serral's winrate against koreans offline is 48.42% (it was like high 60% in 2018 though. Classic's is 60.38% (which is really high; I only recall Mvp, Life, Inno, sOs, and Rain having winrates nearly as high/higher but there's probably more). In fairness, that is really unfair to Serral so I would say looking at winrates is not nearly as important as tournament placements and for players like Serral, we need to account for the context of their winrate because they improved a lot over the years. Now that I think of it a bit more, I think that people should probably mainly discuss tournament achievements when it comes to greatness as that seems to be the only objective criteria that everyone agrees is important. You looked at map score, Serral had at least a 83% win ratio against koreans in offline series in 2018(if not 87%). Also, it's not really meaningful to know he had a 6-27 record against koreans before 2017, is it?
I too like to ignore all data that doesn't paint my picked player in a good light.
|
On May 18 2019 11:37 Phredxor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2019 11:29 Xain0n wrote:On May 18 2019 10:45 Anc13nt wrote:On May 18 2019 10:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On May 18 2019 10:03 Anc13nt wrote:
I think it's a close one between Classic and Serral but I would say Classic has more achievements (and he probably will expand his lead over Serral this year with how both are playing at the moment). I get that Serral has one of the greatest streaks against Koreans but I don't believe in judging the greatness of a player by their peak. For me, the most important things to look at when it comes to greatness are tournament placements and less importantly, team performance and win-rates against Koreans + Top foreigners. I think peaks are worth looking at but they don't serve as much more than a tiebreaker when it comes to ranking players. How does Serral’s win-rate stack up against top Koreans vs Classic’s? I don’t think it’s fair because I don’t think Serral got to play them until he’d learned his trade, whereas Classic was thrown in at the deep end in that sense. I’m not going to trawl through it, intuitively I imagine Serral’s win rates are going to be much better in comparison. By probably quite a decent margin too. We only have two tournaments to go on either, but I imagine Serral’s set differentiation is better than Classic’s as well in tournaments he won. Again as I said I don’t think it’s fair to Classic in this instance, because you’re judging his results when he was getting to his best level along with his tournament results, whereas with Serral you’re judging his results against that opposition vs him kind of having reached his actual level. But again I’m not sure why I’m even bothering giving caveats in that regard when other people don’t seem to be considering the possibility that their weighting means Serral auto-loses to any top 20 Kespa pro I checked and Serral's winrate against koreans offline is 48.42% (it was like high 60% in 2018 though. Classic's is 60.38% (which is really high; I only recall Mvp, Life, Inno, sOs, and Rain having winrates nearly as high/higher but there's probably more). In fairness, that is really unfair to Serral so I would say looking at winrates is not nearly as important as tournament placements and for players like Serral, we need to account for the context of their winrate because they improved a lot over the years. Now that I think of it a bit more, I think that people should probably mainly discuss tournament achievements when it comes to greatness as that seems to be the only objective criteria that everyone agrees is important. You looked at map score, Serral had at least a 83% win ratio against koreans in offline series in 2018(if not 87%). Also, it's not really meaningful to know he had a 6-27 record against koreans before 2017, is it? I too like to ignore all data that doesn't paint my picked player in a good light.
When Serral wasn't playing full time he struggled to get to WCS, he was a talented b tier player. I can't think of anyone who improved as much as Serral did after deciding to seriously devote himself to Starcraft, his previous results are hardly worth anything.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On May 18 2019 11:13 BisuDagger wrote:
I would like to hear more arguments as to how the quality of competition during 2018 was as good as the quality of players during Classic's peak. He was winning during an era where some of the other greats were thriving too. And if that's not something you believe can be discussed then what about the game being played. HoTS versus LoTV. Which version do we rate as the more skill demanding version.
I think the quality of play is higher now then it was in mid-late HOTS, but the competition is easier because there is less player at the top. As someone who has watch quite a lot of old SC2 in the last few weeks running this thing, I have to say that a lot of older games (especially WOL) are strikingly worst than modern Starcraft. Now that doesn't mean the player were actually worst, but there was so much missing game knowledge missing, old dead ball protoss play for example is hard to watch right now, not because it was slow and all but because there are so much players aren't doing; posturing, harassing, keeping track of the other players army...
HOTS is already a lot better, but the game were still much simpler, the game plan were straight foward and it wasn't rare to see the two player just building there stuff on their side of the map for a good while. I'm not really sure if it's a case of the game being different or the player being better, but the best example is zvz. If you look at most Lotv zvz most of them would play on exactly the same in Hots, sure the start was more volatile, but after that it's pretty much all the same except if someone go ling-lurker or something.
Yet HOTS zvz were mostly roaches headbutting each other for 20 minutes, that's almost unheard of theses day everyone has ling counter, burrow roaches, tech switches, drops ect... There is just a lot more happening all of the time, and it's probably not a coincidence that there seemed to be fewer and fewer upset every years. (Of course the fact that there is just fewer pro play a big role, but the skills discrepancy between an amateur and a pro seems to grow as the game get more complex)
Terran opening are another great example, sure they got a lot more early game tools, but man those Terran build these days are something else, the number of steps of harass some of these involve before transitioning into the standard 3 or 5 rax play are amazing when you compared them to HOTS hellbats pushes.
Of course what you needed to be good also changed a lot depending on the era, execution for exemple is less important I think (and maybe worst than before) as thing like soultrain were pretty much all execution.
|
I think it's not ridiculous to vote Serral over Classic but I think it's very difficult to argue that Serral beats Classic in terms of cumulative achievements. If we are talking about greatness in terms of peak (which I personally don't value much but I know many do), then Serral does beat Classic. I think most people, when they're voting, value both and so that is why it's kind of a difficult decision.
Edit: That said, if Classic continues to play as well as he has for the rest of this year, I think his peak will not be far off from Serral's.
|
I don't know why I have been following this argument, but I think everyone's argument really comes down to how much people value Blizzcon. Blizzcon is these days by far the most prestigious tournament with by far the largest prize pool, but it is "easier" to win than a GSL is.
I personally value the high prize pool events over all other events so I have Serral over Classic, Rogue and Byun over Serral and sOs somewhere in my top 3 players.
|
Its a shame because this upcoming WCS and GSL will give us a very good outlook of where they stand. I voted Classic, but i think its a very close call.
|
On May 18 2019 09:43 Moonerz wrote:
Just curious what you mean by plenty of players never had the chance to try Proleague? Everyone in GSL competed in Proleague.... If you mean the new foreigners then I guess that's true, but I don't think that's a reason to discount it (had EGTL too so it's not like no foreigners got to play). Proleague was a very important competition and it's a shame no one seems to value it anymore.
Discounting it makes zero sense. It's like discounting every tournament after 2013 because Mvp didn't compete in them anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
