|
On November 11 2010 17:56 Endorsed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 15:50 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 15:36 Defacer wrote:On November 11 2010 15:29 Fa1nT wrote:
Ugh. Can't read this thread. It's just going to be 20 pages of argument over tourney types for the next 20 pages when that is only a small part of what the podcast was about.. Agreed. I tried to change the subject ... So ... if Day 9 were to play in an MLG, how well would he do? He's obviously better than HD, but I have no idea what his skill level is. I don't really think day9 could keep up with the current US crowd. Last time I saw him play I think he lost to artosis and the only game he won he did a 2 gate before zealot nerf on steppes of war. He plays like 1 game a day. Day9 was an amazing BW player wasn't he? That doesn't go away, when he practices 8 hours a day again I think he would be one of the best NA players.
I think he plays more than that. He's mentioned before on his Dailys and on the cast that he loves playing a lot and one time he mentioned he had a 13 game losing streak haha. He's also said he's over 2000 points a while ago so I'd probably put him at around 2200-2400 if he continued at the pace I speculate he was going at. As a random player that's a pretty damn good. He's mentioned that he ran into Gretorp and Huk on the ladder before as well.
People don't give Sean enough credit for how much he loves the game and how much he loves playing it. He keeps up with strategies not just because he has to as a caster but because he encounters it in his play. Like he said in the cast if he was ever given the opportunity to play in tournaments with proper time to practice he would because he loves it. But as of right now he doesn't have the time to commit to that what with casting every major tournament and grad school. Maybe once he graduates he can commit to playing in tournaments as well as casting.
|
On November 11 2010 17:56 Endorsed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 15:50 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 15:36 Defacer wrote:On November 11 2010 15:29 Fa1nT wrote:
Ugh. Can't read this thread. It's just going to be 20 pages of argument over tourney types for the next 20 pages when that is only a small part of what the podcast was about.. Agreed. I tried to change the subject ... So ... if Day 9 were to play in an MLG, how well would he do? He's obviously better than HD, but I have no idea what his skill level is. I don't really think day9 could keep up with the current US crowd. Last time I saw him play I think he lost to artosis and the only game he won he did a 2 gate before zealot nerf on steppes of war. He plays like 1 game a day. Day9 was an amazing BW player wasn't he? That doesn't go away, when he practices 8 hours a day again I think he would be one of the best NA players.
It does go away though, if it didn't there would be no such thing as gamers being in their prime.
|
when Sean graduate, im 100% sure he will start playing alot more, and then im pretty sure he will get in top shape
that is ofc if he doesn't get a million E-sports job, but that would also be freaking amazing
|
Pretty sure DayNine said not long ago that he sparred with Gretorp here and there and that he had him on those games only to mess up in some ways.
He is probably more than decent to finish just outside top 16 MLG currently. maybe 19-32 depending on brackets and matchups etc.
I also saw him spar with Huk now and then on his account and take games of him. Not sure if that was real game though. But pretty sure Day9 is much better skillwise ( and commentary skill wise) than any other shoutcasters.
JP is even 1800+ diamond no ? so Day9 has to be 2300+ provided he uses his bonus pool.
|
On November 11 2010 18:37 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 17:56 Endorsed wrote:On November 11 2010 15:50 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 15:36 Defacer wrote:On November 11 2010 15:29 Fa1nT wrote:
Ugh. Can't read this thread. It's just going to be 20 pages of argument over tourney types for the next 20 pages when that is only a small part of what the podcast was about.. Agreed. I tried to change the subject ... So ... if Day 9 were to play in an MLG, how well would he do? He's obviously better than HD, but I have no idea what his skill level is. I don't really think day9 could keep up with the current US crowd. Last time I saw him play I think he lost to artosis and the only game he won he did a 2 gate before zealot nerf on steppes of war. He plays like 1 game a day. Day9 was an amazing BW player wasn't he? That doesn't go away, when he practices 8 hours a day again I think he would be one of the best NA players. It does go away though, if it didn't there would be no such thing as gamers being in their prime.
Uh, BoxeR was considered the best SC1 gamer in the early days of Starcraft 1.
Now, 5-10 years later, he's one of the best SC2 players.
The standard use of a "a gamer being in their prime" just means when their bodies get to a point where they can't be as fast as they used to be able to (which is why people are saying stuff like "BoxeR switched because he couldn't keep up with SC1 APM and SC2 is so much easier blah blah").
It has absolutely nothing to do with losing knowledge.
|
On November 11 2010 19:04 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 18:37 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 17:56 Endorsed wrote:On November 11 2010 15:50 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 15:36 Defacer wrote:On November 11 2010 15:29 Fa1nT wrote:
Ugh. Can't read this thread. It's just going to be 20 pages of argument over tourney types for the next 20 pages when that is only a small part of what the podcast was about.. Agreed. I tried to change the subject ... So ... if Day 9 were to play in an MLG, how well would he do? He's obviously better than HD, but I have no idea what his skill level is. I don't really think day9 could keep up with the current US crowd. Last time I saw him play I think he lost to artosis and the only game he won he did a 2 gate before zealot nerf on steppes of war. He plays like 1 game a day. Day9 was an amazing BW player wasn't he? That doesn't go away, when he practices 8 hours a day again I think he would be one of the best NA players. It does go away though, if it didn't there would be no such thing as gamers being in their prime. Uh, BoxeR was considered the best SC1 gamer in the early days of Starcraft 1. Now, 5-10 years later, he's one of the best SC2 players. The standard use of a "a gamer being in their prime" just means when their bodies get to a point where they can't be as fast as they used to be able to (which is why people are saying stuff like "BoxeR switched because he couldn't keep up with SC1 APM and SC2 is so much easier blah blah"). It has absolutely nothing to do with losing knowledge.
We were not talking about knowledge... donno what made you think we were. Boxer is past his prime... dunno what to tell you...
You can deny that all you want but he has been past his prime for a long time. Prime is relative to what it is being used for. Someone is in their prime when they are most effective at something. In regards to rts games it would be a combination of gamesense + physical capability. The exact balance varies from player to player some player may have great speed and terrible gamesense, he may end up losing a little speed over time but gaining a ton of wisdom, which might make him more effective than when he was just using pure speed, he would be considered in his prime where he was most effective as an overall player.
|
On November 11 2010 19:09 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 19:04 dcemuser wrote:On November 11 2010 18:37 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 17:56 Endorsed wrote:On November 11 2010 15:50 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 15:36 Defacer wrote:On November 11 2010 15:29 Fa1nT wrote:
Ugh. Can't read this thread. It's just going to be 20 pages of argument over tourney types for the next 20 pages when that is only a small part of what the podcast was about.. Agreed. I tried to change the subject ... So ... if Day 9 were to play in an MLG, how well would he do? He's obviously better than HD, but I have no idea what his skill level is. I don't really think day9 could keep up with the current US crowd. Last time I saw him play I think he lost to artosis and the only game he won he did a 2 gate before zealot nerf on steppes of war. He plays like 1 game a day. Day9 was an amazing BW player wasn't he? That doesn't go away, when he practices 8 hours a day again I think he would be one of the best NA players. It does go away though, if it didn't there would be no such thing as gamers being in their prime. Uh, BoxeR was considered the best SC1 gamer in the early days of Starcraft 1. Now, 5-10 years later, he's one of the best SC2 players. The standard use of a "a gamer being in their prime" just means when their bodies get to a point where they can't be as fast as they used to be able to (which is why people are saying stuff like "BoxeR switched because he couldn't keep up with SC1 APM and SC2 is so much easier blah blah"). It has absolutely nothing to do with losing knowledge. We were not talking about knowledge... donno what made you think we were. Boxer is past his prime... dunno what to tell you... You can deny that all you want but he has been past his prime for a long time. Prime is relative to what it is being used for. Someone is in their prime when they are most effective at something. In regards to rts games it would be a combination of gamesense + physical capability. The exact balance varies from player to player some player may have great speed and terrible gamesense, he may end up losing a little speed over time but gaining a ton of wisdom, which might make him more effective than when he was just using pure speed, he would be considered in his prime where he was most effective as an overall player.
Okay, now taking what you've just said and applying it back to Day9, it makes no sense to me.
Day9 is still a college student - he's not even 30. There is nothing to say he couldn't be in his prime right now.
|
On November 11 2010 19:21 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 19:09 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 19:04 dcemuser wrote:On November 11 2010 18:37 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 17:56 Endorsed wrote:On November 11 2010 15:50 robertdinh wrote:On November 11 2010 15:36 Defacer wrote:On November 11 2010 15:29 Fa1nT wrote:
Ugh. Can't read this thread. It's just going to be 20 pages of argument over tourney types for the next 20 pages when that is only a small part of what the podcast was about.. Agreed. I tried to change the subject ... So ... if Day 9 were to play in an MLG, how well would he do? He's obviously better than HD, but I have no idea what his skill level is. I don't really think day9 could keep up with the current US crowd. Last time I saw him play I think he lost to artosis and the only game he won he did a 2 gate before zealot nerf on steppes of war. He plays like 1 game a day. Day9 was an amazing BW player wasn't he? That doesn't go away, when he practices 8 hours a day again I think he would be one of the best NA players. It does go away though, if it didn't there would be no such thing as gamers being in their prime. Uh, BoxeR was considered the best SC1 gamer in the early days of Starcraft 1. Now, 5-10 years later, he's one of the best SC2 players. The standard use of a "a gamer being in their prime" just means when their bodies get to a point where they can't be as fast as they used to be able to (which is why people are saying stuff like "BoxeR switched because he couldn't keep up with SC1 APM and SC2 is so much easier blah blah"). It has absolutely nothing to do with losing knowledge. We were not talking about knowledge... donno what made you think we were. Boxer is past his prime... dunno what to tell you... You can deny that all you want but he has been past his prime for a long time. Prime is relative to what it is being used for. Someone is in their prime when they are most effective at something. In regards to rts games it would be a combination of gamesense + physical capability. The exact balance varies from player to player some player may have great speed and terrible gamesense, he may end up losing a little speed over time but gaining a ton of wisdom, which might make him more effective than when he was just using pure speed, he would be considered in his prime where he was most effective as an overall player. Okay, now taking what you've just said and applying it back to Day9, it makes no sense to me. Day9 is still a college student - he's not even 30. There is nothing to say he couldn't be in his prime right now.
Ok but the point was that people do eventually see a deterioration in their skill, so I was pointing out that it does "go away" as some poster said it doesn't.
I have not said day9 is past his prime, maybe he is maybe he isn't, but he definitely is not playing SC2 with the same success that he had played BW with.
You can try to justify that with certain arguments, but results speak louder than words, and until he has actually shown that he is a dominant sc2 player, it is silly to just assume that he is.
|
sup broskis,
heard there was a lot of chat about tournament results and how they rate the players.
so I'll throw in my two cents on the debate.
A tournament or single event at this point in time (probably till the next expansion or longer) cannot really be used to show a players worth. A competitor can play well, solid and consistent but still drop games and series due to the current dynamics of Starcraft 2.
Up until there is a back-to-back major tournament winner (along the lines of GSL/MLG) I think it's very farfetched to categorize a player as the best or superior to the any of the field that they did not not directly play.
I can almost guarantee you that if you shuffle the brackets for MLG Dallas you would get a different winner virtually every time.
Only analyzing who each player faced and defeated can really be used to judge a players performance.
Can't think atm I'll finish this later.
TL;DR version: At this point in time a tournament result should be viewed in an isolated fashion and not to rate the players that were participating.
(and before any qq I am not discrediting anyone for their results/finish)
|
A bit of feedback, the part where whomever was typing in the chat was making everyone laugh was really disorienting and honestly pretty much ruined the mood for me. There's another podcast that I listen to called Painkiller Already made by some FPS players and they make a really big deal out of sticking to the material at hand and being viewer conscious. In that podcast, they're prohibited from doing things like sharing youtube videos and talking about them with one another or typing in chat unless it's necessary for things like "got to pee". Please be more aware of this, I'm looking forward to the next one, I can't get enough of you guys!
|
LOL, I just listened to this cast and I really can't believe how illogical iNcontrol's argument with Tyler is. The points that he is coming up with about extended series absolutely don't make any sense! First time I've ever heard iNcontroL have no idea what he is talking about 
|
On November 11 2010 06:52 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 06:37 vohne wrote:
Yo incontrol, as much as you are probably the funniest guy on the show and one of the reasons why I listen to it a lot, it does however get to the point that your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive. You can imagine what it is like for a regular subscriber to constantly hear this, and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting. Aside from this, I have nothing but good praise for this show and have continued to recommend it to my friends and people I meet on bnet. More power to the four pillars. quit being such a native american. As a white man I feel obligated to discuss racial imbalances as they particularly favor me and my fellow supreme race brethren. next episode we will cover sexism issues and begin with the topic of "sandwiches: before or after she cleans the kitchen?"
Lol, as hypocritical as it may seem (though in strict definition it is not), I would not mind a thorough discussion on whether sandwiches should be before made before or after a woman santises a kitchen. However the supreme race discussion should be focused on why WE, toss players, are superior. Be careful of HuK btw, that last interview I saw him sneak a wink in at your sandiwch maker.
|
On November 11 2010 11:08 zarepath wrote:Show nested quote +... your racist jokes sometimes cross the border of funny to offensive... and while some are of taste, there are some that are just down right insulting Dude, sign me up for the Racist Jokes Of Taste campaign. Let's stamp out all the distasteful, tainted ones, leaving only the purest, most appropriate breeds of Racist Jokes! EDIT: Anybody else find it hilarious that for all our SC2 fervor and zeal, we apparently can't decide what the point of a tournament is?
I guess it is a matter of the sense of humor a person has. I sometimes find incontrol's wit to be hilarious, especially since big buff guys that I know are not so bright up there. So whilst it is obviously tough to filter which jokes are offensive and which jokes can pass for acceptable, it is still important that there is a level of "control" on incontrol's racist jokes.
Not trying to be anal about it. I can't even remember the particular joke that compelled me to post here. The joke on Asian drivers was hilarious, and very quotable.
|
On November 11 2010 19:54 Cade wrote:LOL, I just listened to this cast and I really can't believe how illogical iNcontrol's argument with Tyler is. The points that he is coming up with about extended series absolutely don't make any sense! First time I've ever heard iNcontroL have no idea what he is talking about
You must have missed his map discussion with Artosis...
|
idra interrupts the other casters so much!
|
On November 11 2010 18:56 dtz wrote:
But pretty sure Day9 is much better skillwise ( and commentary skill wise) than any other shoutcasters.
Tasteless beat him in the HDH, and Artosis has qualified for the GSL, so I think at least those two have claims to disagree.
|
On November 11 2010 14:44 Wargizmo wrote:
IdrA seemed to be the only person on the podcast that actually 'gets it' with regard to the extended series.
The whole point of double elim is to give everyone two lives. The people who have to play an extended series from behind essentially only get one life, they lose one best of 7 and they're out of the whole tournament.
Tylers point about being 2-2 against someone on aggregate but still getting put out of the tournament is completely invalid, because the guy is out because he lost twice not because he's better or worse than the other player. The other player is still in the tournament because he only lost once.
People are trying to argue from this perspective and they are straight up factually wrong. Double elimination was never created to give lesser players a second chance, it was created to give stronger players a cushion from bad seeding.
Player B is stronger than player C and player D. Player A is a little weaker than player B and stronger than player D and C. First round bad seeding puts up Player A against player B and Player C against player D. In single elimination, Player A has a very small chance of moving on despite being better than half the players in the tournament. Hence double elimination was created in order to try to ensure the strongest players make it farther in the tournament.
However the "Two Bo3's" format completely undermines this. If you already beat the person in the winners bracket, not only would you have knocked them out completely in the truest form of a tournament (Single elimination), but you could actually lose by going 3-2 in your games.
Having only "lost once" is irrelevant. You are getting a consolation bracket, not to "give you a second chance because you're weaker", but to protect you from going against a player slightly stronger than you in early rounds while you are still stronger than a lot of players in the tournament.
As I have said before:
If there was a way to have perfect seeding the person who lost first would be completely out of the tournament after that loss. To have the person that was knocked out of an ideal tournament (single elimination), be able to lose to a player 2-3 overall and have the original winner knocked out is ludicrous, because the purpose of double elimination is to ensure the stronger players make it farther in the tournament.
Extended Series fixes this.
|
On November 11 2010 22:52 Shakes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 18:56 dtz wrote:
But pretty sure Day9 is much better skillwise ( and commentary skill wise) than any other shoutcasters. Tasteless beat him in the HDH, and Artosis has qualified for the GSL, so I think at least those two have claims to disagree.
If we apply that logic on all results it would mean Nazgul is better than Idra, which I think we can all agree is not necessary true if we look at the overall performance. Also its kinda silly to try to compare inactive and active progamers with eachother, since a lot comes down to practice hours. If you have the history and knowledge of a progamer you can achieve pretty high skill level in couple of weeks like, once again, Nazgul showed us.
So if Day9 were to start training seriously for a tournament I think he would prolly be top 16.
|
On November 11 2010 23:04 Darksteel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 22:52 Shakes wrote:On November 11 2010 18:56 dtz wrote:
But pretty sure Day9 is much better skillwise ( and commentary skill wise) than any other shoutcasters. Tasteless beat him in the HDH, and Artosis has qualified for the GSL, so I think at least those two have claims to disagree. If we apply that logic on all results it would mean Nazgul is better than Idra, which I think we can all agree is not necessary true if we look at the overall performance. Also its kinda silly to try to compare inactive and active progamers with eachother, since a lot comes down to practice hours. If you have the history and knowledge of a progamer you can achieve pretty high skill level in couple of weeks like, once again, Nazgul showed us. So if Day9 were to start training seriously for a tournament I think he would prolly be top 16.
I didn't say it proves they were better, I said they had reasonable claims that they might be better. And I kind of assumed we meant right now, not if they happened to do training.
|
On November 11 2010 08:47 nzb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2010 08:17 kojinshugi wrote:On November 11 2010 06:24 nzb wrote:
Day[9]'s argument that tournaments don't guarantee the winner is a little irrelevant -- the point of a tournament is to maximize the probability that a player's final ranking will match their "true ranking" (based on probabilities, whatever). Tyler's argument was that the extended series increases this probability, which seems solid to me.
But I agree that extended series is a strange incongruence in the tournament format, and I'm not sure if the mathematical improvement to tournament outcomes is worth the head scratching it produces. No, the point of a tournament is to find out who can beat the most opponents until there are no others left. People find such things entertaining. There's absolutely nothing about a single tournament's results that can gauge skill. You can get a vague idea of skill (or consistency) by looking at the results of many tournaments, sorta, but the main point of any individual tournament is to compete and entertain, not to gauge skill. It's a piss-poor device for doing such a thing. The only numbers that can somewhat objectively measure skill are ladder rankings. The top 100 players in the world are quite likely to be very, very good at this game indeed. But this skill isn't a guarantor of tournament success. Nothing is, although consistent results will come from not losing focus due to stage fright or just the high-stakes games being played. If you really want to figure out who the best SC2 players are (not just the most "skillful"), then you need to find people who consistently do well in tournaments and are also high on the ladder. When looking at results, ignore the outliers and see if overall they make it to the top 16 or top 8 more often than not. This seems a little odd to me... Like you are saying "the point of a tournament is to have a tournament." The idea of "winning a tournament" is showing, roughly, that "I was the best on that day/weekend/whatever." Thats why it has prestige. There is obviously some kind of skill judgement that taking place.
But the purpose of a tournament is not to judge skill. It is to compete. You might win a tournament with one cheese build that you memorized, even if your actual "skill" as far as SC2 or RTS goes is pretty craptacular. You might win a tournament because you get really lucky in the brackets.
A single tournament cannot and will not give you any data on anyone's skill level. You can subjectively judge skill by observing actual gameplay, but that's not quantifiable.
To use Day9's coin toss example, you cannot tell what the weighted "heads" percentage of each coin is if your experimentation consists of "flip heads two out of three times, then advance to next round."
Again, the purpose of a match, or a series, or a tournament is not to gauge skill but to determine a winner. If someone cheeses Idra twice this doesn't mean they're more skilled than him. Overall he's probably more skilled and will end up placing high in more tournaments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
