|
I definitely hope Stephano makes a run at Code S at some point next year. It seems he's more than capable. Perhaps a little unwilling?
|
He's going to enter Code A isn't he?
|
On December 13 2011 09:28 Hall0wed wrote:
Wait why is this thread still open? It has been terrible the whole way through from start to finish and it somehow made it to page 43? What...
It's a honey-pot to keep the stephano fanboys and anti-fans from arguing in other threads.
|
|
|
On December 13 2011 09:14 fourColo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:10 Squeegy wrote:On December 13 2011 08:55 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:48 Silidons wrote:On December 13 2011 08:39 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:33 1Eris1 wrote:On December 13 2011 08:30 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:28 1Eris1 wrote:On December 13 2011 08:25 kratos-23 wrote:
Aocowns you need to shut the f**** up. stephano is the most successful foreigner and that's a fact, period. Such flawless logic you have there. Didn't realize IPL3, IPL4 UK Qual and ESWC trumped Two MLGs, a Dreamhack, Homestory, achieveing Code S and getting a Ro.8 in Code S ... They kind of do in terms of dollars actually. So because IPL 3 gave out 6x as much as a MLG it was 6x more accomplishing? Is his IPL 3 win also more impressive than Nada's 4 (or was it 5?) consecutive Code S ro.8 runs? Because I mean those only gave out like 3k a pop... prize money=/=difficulty necessarily True, but it's also measurable. So is ELO, and by that metric Stephano is also above Huk currently. If you want to measure all time success, Huk's peak is higher than Stephanos. There's two think you're trying to compare here, 1) past success and 2) predictions of future success. You might have a point that Huk (or some other foreigner) is more likely to succeed in the future because he has more high profile televised tournament wins than Stephano. It's really hard to predict the future though. But if we're looking at past success, Stephano is more successful in terms of winnings than any other foreigner. You can't argue this without bringing up unrecorded tournament winnings that we don't know about. Another measure might be salary or sponsorship but that's information that we don't have available. Measuring how good a player is by ELO and monetary prize is the worst example. Case in-point for ELO: the top 5 power ranking shit. Look at it to the right. It's Nani, Nerchio, Stephano, Kas, SaSe. They count small tournaments that have sub-par players in them so some players ELO gets inflated. I'm not saying these guys are bad, but do you think Nerchio is better than HuK, IdrA, Stephano, Sen, the list goes on. ELO is not a measure of skill. Measuring skill is done by having two players play each other, and if you were to ask, "Do you think Nerchio would beat Stephano" I would probably say no. But the only way to get a high ELO is by winning, and the only way to get an extremly high ELO is by winning a lot. Those top five players have won a lot recently, that's what ELO is telling you and I don't disagree with either of those top 5 lists. The sticky situation arises when you want to find a dominant player to place your bets on. People say "I'll bet on stephano because he beat player X in an extremely dominant fashion". And that's fine because people should be free to choose their favorite player. But if you're going to argue that player X is more successful than player Y, you should have better arguments than "well he had a really strong showing in this tournament" or "he has some wins but not against people I consider to be good". ELO is not a very good measurement in SC2 because there are a million different tournaments with different player pools. It works in BW because there are only OSL and MSL and they're quite standardized. Everyone tries to play in them. So if you wish to score a lot of points you will have to make a deep run in the leagues. Tournament price money, although measurable, is a rather idiotic way of measuring success, unless you mean success in wealth. MLG and IPL is a great example as was pointed out. Moreover, if we have to go by something that can be measured, then hey, we can measure APM too, let's use that! Yes, when we try to determine success we will have to use more complex ways than just price winnings and ELO. This makes it a hard task and some subjectivity will always be present but it is hell of a lot better way of doing it than what you're suggesting. There are other good ways: Activity in their TL fan page # of sponsors Salary # of televised wins weighted by viewership Sure ELO isn't perfect, but what we have is: "WELL sTc is a really good player and so is MMA and Stephano roflstomped them so he must be the best foreigner, Huk doesn't count because he didn't win this or that and his competition wasn't fierce at this other tournament".
You and I have a very different notion of good: Activity on their TL fan page. Destiny, apparently, is very popular but by no means that good. Grubby is rather well sponsored but not very good. Koreans get way less salary. Only GSL games are televised. Viewership can be affected by all kinds of externalities.
Could some of those be helpful? Yes, but only marginally so. We know that the activity on MVP's fanpage is not due to the same reasons as Destiny's. We know that it is from him being succesful. Therefore, we must have some other way of telling success. In that sense, activity on a fanpage can be evidence of success, but only in conjunction with other evidence. Activity by itself tells us nothing. When applied like this it can be useful in a more complex system of evaluating players. But even then only marginally.
No, that is what we call a strawman argument.
|
On December 13 2011 09:48 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:14 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 09:10 Squeegy wrote:On December 13 2011 08:55 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:48 Silidons wrote:On December 13 2011 08:39 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:33 1Eris1 wrote:On December 13 2011 08:30 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:28 1Eris1 wrote:On December 13 2011 08:25 kratos-23 wrote:
Aocowns you need to shut the f**** up. stephano is the most successful foreigner and that's a fact, period. Such flawless logic you have there. Didn't realize IPL3, IPL4 UK Qual and ESWC trumped Two MLGs, a Dreamhack, Homestory, achieveing Code S and getting a Ro.8 in Code S ... They kind of do in terms of dollars actually. So because IPL 3 gave out 6x as much as a MLG it was 6x more accomplishing? Is his IPL 3 win also more impressive than Nada's 4 (or was it 5?) consecutive Code S ro.8 runs? Because I mean those only gave out like 3k a pop... prize money=/=difficulty necessarily True, but it's also measurable. So is ELO, and by that metric Stephano is also above Huk currently. If you want to measure all time success, Huk's peak is higher than Stephanos. There's two think you're trying to compare here, 1) past success and 2) predictions of future success. You might have a point that Huk (or some other foreigner) is more likely to succeed in the future because he has more high profile televised tournament wins than Stephano. It's really hard to predict the future though. But if we're looking at past success, Stephano is more successful in terms of winnings than any other foreigner. You can't argue this without bringing up unrecorded tournament winnings that we don't know about. Another measure might be salary or sponsorship but that's information that we don't have available. Measuring how good a player is by ELO and monetary prize is the worst example. Case in-point for ELO: the top 5 power ranking shit. Look at it to the right. It's Nani, Nerchio, Stephano, Kas, SaSe. They count small tournaments that have sub-par players in them so some players ELO gets inflated. I'm not saying these guys are bad, but do you think Nerchio is better than HuK, IdrA, Stephano, Sen, the list goes on. ELO is not a measure of skill. Measuring skill is done by having two players play each other, and if you were to ask, "Do you think Nerchio would beat Stephano" I would probably say no. But the only way to get a high ELO is by winning, and the only way to get an extremly high ELO is by winning a lot. Those top five players have won a lot recently, that's what ELO is telling you and I don't disagree with either of those top 5 lists. The sticky situation arises when you want to find a dominant player to place your bets on. People say "I'll bet on stephano because he beat player X in an extremely dominant fashion". And that's fine because people should be free to choose their favorite player. But if you're going to argue that player X is more successful than player Y, you should have better arguments than "well he had a really strong showing in this tournament" or "he has some wins but not against people I consider to be good". ELO is not a very good measurement in SC2 because there are a million different tournaments with different player pools. It works in BW because there are only OSL and MSL and they're quite standardized. Everyone tries to play in them. So if you wish to score a lot of points you will have to make a deep run in the leagues. Tournament price money, although measurable, is a rather idiotic way of measuring success, unless you mean success in wealth. MLG and IPL is a great example as was pointed out. Moreover, if we have to go by something that can be measured, then hey, we can measure APM too, let's use that! Yes, when we try to determine success we will have to use more complex ways than just price winnings and ELO. This makes it a hard task and some subjectivity will always be present but it is hell of a lot better way of doing it than what you're suggesting. There are other good ways: Activity in their TL fan page # of sponsors Salary # of televised wins weighted by viewership Sure ELO isn't perfect, but what we have is: "WELL sTc is a really good player and so is MMA and Stephano roflstomped them so he must be the best foreigner, Huk doesn't count because he didn't win this or that and his competition wasn't fierce at this other tournament". You and I have a very different notion of good: Activity on their TL fan page. Destiny, apparently, is very popular but by no means that good. Grubby is rather well sponsored but not very good. Koreans get way less salary. Only GSL games are televised. Viewership can be affected by all kinds of externalities. Could some of those be helpful? Yes, but only marginally so. We know that the activity on MVP's fanpage is not due to the same reasons as Destiny's. We know that it is from him being succesful. Therefore, we must have some other way of telling success. In that sense, activity on a fanpage can be evidence of success, but only in conjunction with other evidence. Activity by itself tells us nothing. When applied like this it can be useful in a more complex system of evaluating players. But even then only marginally. No, that is what we call a strawman argument.
How do you evaluate the skill of a player? Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Back that shit up.
I would say popularity is extremely important. I don't think Destiny is a very good player but is now going to Korea to train. He makes a lot of money and makes a lot of appearances that I don't think he would if he were not as popular. Obviously this isn't a measure of skill and I didn't say it was -- I said it was a measure of success.
No, that is what we call a strawman argument.
|
On December 13 2011 09:38 fourColo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:28 The KY wrote:On December 13 2011 09:20 Aocowns wrote:On December 13 2011 09:16 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 09:11 Silidons wrote:On December 13 2011 08:55 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:48 Silidons wrote:On December 13 2011 08:39 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:33 1Eris1 wrote:On December 13 2011 08:30 fourColo wrote:
[quote]
They kind of do in terms of dollars actually. So because IPL 3 gave out 6x as much as a MLG it was 6x more accomplishing? Is his IPL 3 win also more impressive than Nada's 4 (or was it 5?) consecutive Code S ro.8 runs? Because I mean those only gave out like 3k a pop... prize money=/=difficulty necessarily True, but it's also measurable. So is ELO, and by that metric Stephano is also above Huk currently. If you want to measure all time success, Huk's peak is higher than Stephanos. There's two think you're trying to compare here, 1) past success and 2) predictions of future success. You might have a point that Huk (or some other foreigner) is more likely to succeed in the future because he has more high profile televised tournament wins than Stephano. It's really hard to predict the future though. But if we're looking at past success, Stephano is more successful in terms of winnings than any other foreigner. You can't argue this without bringing up unrecorded tournament winnings that we don't know about. Another measure might be salary or sponsorship but that's information that we don't have available. Measuring how good a player is by ELO and monetary prize is the worst example. Case in-point for ELO: the top 5 power ranking shit. Look at it to the right. It's Nani, Nerchio, Stephano, Kas, SaSe. They count small tournaments that have sub-par players in them so some players ELO gets inflated. I'm not saying these guys are bad, but do you think Nerchio is better than HuK, IdrA, Stephano, Sen, the list goes on. ELO is not a measure of skill. Measuring skill is done by having two players play each other, and if you were to ask, "Do you think Nerchio would beat Stephano" I would probably say no. But the only way to get a high ELO is by winning, and the only way to get an extremly high ELO is by winning a lot. Those top five players have won a lot recently, that's what ELO is telling you and I don't disagree with either of those top 5 lists. The sticky situation arises when you want to find a dominant player to place your bets on. People say "I'll bet on stephano because he beat player X in an extremely dominant fashion". And that's fine because people should be free to choose their favorite player. But if you're going to argue that player X is more successful than player Y, you should have better arguments than "well he had a really strong showing in this tournament" or "he has some wins but not against people I consider to be good". but this is the entire argument on why stephano is one of the best sc2 players...are you agreeing with me that foreigners are inflated in skill on this site or do you think otherwise? also, you believe nerchio has been a better player lately than HuK, Sen, IdrA, etc. Ok, that is actually dead wrong. I think Stephano is really good but also that there's no reason to believe that he's going to be a "top" player like MVP or Nestea. If we look at past success using numbers, we can see that he's done miraculously well compared to most foreigners and "pretty good" compared to top koreans. I won't say it's impossible though, who knows? Just that it's a little unreasonable to expect him to win everything given current data. On December 13 2011 09:14 SafeAsCheese wrote:
This thread should have been closed the instant a mod read the original thread and title, now it just devolved into shit.
Great post! Good job! In think it was an accurate depiction of this thread Indeed. A petty argument over which of two players is better based on nothing but results*, it's incredibly pointless not just because we can't objectively say who is better but also because it doesn't fucking matter. *Seriously, fuck the 'results' mentality. The mentality that says that tournament wins are everything ever. Sure it's important but it's so annoying that everyone who doesn't have 'results' is fucking trash, and you can determine who is objectively better by their 'results'. VOTE WITH YOUR HEART MANNN! Personally I think StarTale_Superstar is the best player ever because I want him to be! I mean do you vote for your politicians based on who you'd most want to have a beer with? Maybe based on their favorite color? Results are everything. That's what pros should care about, tournament results, sponsorships, salaries, and having the best team. Whether some dude on the internet likes them because of one cool game where he beat the favored player shouldn't matter, I'm sorry. If you want to talk about who's good and who isn't that's fun, but come on, you should have some reason behind it.
So it's impossible for a player to be better than another with worse results? I'm afraid not. Plus, people who really know the game (i.e. not the people in this thread) can tell which players are better by the way they play.
An example of how results are not everything; yesterday the English football teams Stoke played Tottenham. Stoke won 2-1. No unbiased person in England will claim that Stoke is the better team.
Regardless even of that, the discussion has no ending, is pointless anyway, and has gone on for too long now. There can only be so many pages of 'who's better, Idra or Stephano?' before you can officially class the thread as turned to shite.
P.S. No you vote for politicians based on which one can tell the most reasonable sounding lies, or seem most like the non-existent average voter. 
|
On December 13 2011 09:50 fourColo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:48 Squeegy wrote:On December 13 2011 09:14 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 09:10 Squeegy wrote:On December 13 2011 08:55 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:48 Silidons wrote:On December 13 2011 08:39 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:33 1Eris1 wrote:On December 13 2011 08:30 fourColo wrote:On December 13 2011 08:28 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Such flawless logic you have there. Didn't realize IPL3, IPL4 UK Qual and ESWC trumped Two MLGs, a Dreamhack, Homestory, achieveing Code S and getting a Ro.8 in Code S
... They kind of do in terms of dollars actually. So because IPL 3 gave out 6x as much as a MLG it was 6x more accomplishing? Is his IPL 3 win also more impressive than Nada's 4 (or was it 5?) consecutive Code S ro.8 runs? Because I mean those only gave out like 3k a pop... prize money=/=difficulty necessarily True, but it's also measurable. So is ELO, and by that metric Stephano is also above Huk currently. If you want to measure all time success, Huk's peak is higher than Stephanos. There's two think you're trying to compare here, 1) past success and 2) predictions of future success. You might have a point that Huk (or some other foreigner) is more likely to succeed in the future because he has more high profile televised tournament wins than Stephano. It's really hard to predict the future though. But if we're looking at past success, Stephano is more successful in terms of winnings than any other foreigner. You can't argue this without bringing up unrecorded tournament winnings that we don't know about. Another measure might be salary or sponsorship but that's information that we don't have available. Measuring how good a player is by ELO and monetary prize is the worst example. Case in-point for ELO: the top 5 power ranking shit. Look at it to the right. It's Nani, Nerchio, Stephano, Kas, SaSe. They count small tournaments that have sub-par players in them so some players ELO gets inflated. I'm not saying these guys are bad, but do you think Nerchio is better than HuK, IdrA, Stephano, Sen, the list goes on. ELO is not a measure of skill. Measuring skill is done by having two players play each other, and if you were to ask, "Do you think Nerchio would beat Stephano" I would probably say no. But the only way to get a high ELO is by winning, and the only way to get an extremly high ELO is by winning a lot. Those top five players have won a lot recently, that's what ELO is telling you and I don't disagree with either of those top 5 lists. The sticky situation arises when you want to find a dominant player to place your bets on. People say "I'll bet on stephano because he beat player X in an extremely dominant fashion". And that's fine because people should be free to choose their favorite player. But if you're going to argue that player X is more successful than player Y, you should have better arguments than "well he had a really strong showing in this tournament" or "he has some wins but not against people I consider to be good". ELO is not a very good measurement in SC2 because there are a million different tournaments with different player pools. It works in BW because there are only OSL and MSL and they're quite standardized. Everyone tries to play in them. So if you wish to score a lot of points you will have to make a deep run in the leagues. Tournament price money, although measurable, is a rather idiotic way of measuring success, unless you mean success in wealth. MLG and IPL is a great example as was pointed out. Moreover, if we have to go by something that can be measured, then hey, we can measure APM too, let's use that! Yes, when we try to determine success we will have to use more complex ways than just price winnings and ELO. This makes it a hard task and some subjectivity will always be present but it is hell of a lot better way of doing it than what you're suggesting. There are other good ways: Activity in their TL fan page # of sponsors Salary # of televised wins weighted by viewership Sure ELO isn't perfect, but what we have is: "WELL sTc is a really good player and so is MMA and Stephano roflstomped them so he must be the best foreigner, Huk doesn't count because he didn't win this or that and his competition wasn't fierce at this other tournament". You and I have a very different notion of good: Activity on their TL fan page. Destiny, apparently, is very popular but by no means that good. Grubby is rather well sponsored but not very good. Koreans get way less salary. Only GSL games are televised. Viewership can be affected by all kinds of externalities. Could some of those be helpful? Yes, but only marginally so. We know that the activity on MVP's fanpage is not due to the same reasons as Destiny's. We know that it is from him being succesful. Therefore, we must have some other way of telling success. In that sense, activity on a fanpage can be evidence of success, but only in conjunction with other evidence. Activity by itself tells us nothing. When applied like this it can be useful in a more complex system of evaluating players. But even then only marginally. No, that is what we call a strawman argument. How do you evaluate the skill of a player? Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Back that shit up. I would say popularity is extremely important. I don't think Destiny is a very good player but is now going to Korea to train. He makes a lot of money and makes a lot of appearances that I don't think he would if he were not as popular. Obviously this isn't a measure of skill and I didn't say it was -- I said it was a measure of success. No, that is what we call a strawman argument.
I already backed it up by pointing out how bad your method is. I don't really care enough to actually attempt to analyze and explain what would be optimal, but I sure as hell would only consider the things you mentioned marginally. For example if MVP beats MMA, Nestea and MC 3-0 in a tournament. That weights in way more than how active his fanclub is or how many viewers his games had.
Well clearly we are talking about very different things then as there can be different kinds of success. For example Husky plays the game and is quite succesful. I am interested in finding out the skill of a player via success. That is to build some kind of ranking list based on who are the best at given times. And this is of course, dare I add, quite clearly, what everyone else has been talking about.
|
Just notice hes rank ELEVEN on KR GM ladder... holy shit prolly the best non KR placement ever.. TOo bad he doesnt want to stay in KR he would have a chance to win code S...
|
On December 13 2011 10:39 Moralez wrote:
Just notice hes rank ELEVEN on KR GM ladder... holy shit prolly the best non KR placement ever.. TOo bad he doesnt want to stay in KR he would have a chance to win code S...
Right. That's a bit overboard, don't you think?
|
On December 13 2011 10:40 zedi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 10:39 Moralez wrote:
Just notice hes rank ELEVEN on KR GM ladder... holy shit prolly the best non KR placement ever.. TOo bad he doesnt want to stay in KR he would have a chance to win code S... Right. That's a bit overboard, don't you think?
hm not really hes like Nestea level. i said he has a CHANCE.
|
On December 13 2011 10:41 Moralez wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 10:40 zedi wrote:On December 13 2011 10:39 Moralez wrote:
Just notice hes rank ELEVEN on KR GM ladder... holy shit prolly the best non KR placement ever.. TOo bad he doesnt want to stay in KR he would have a chance to win code S... Right. That's a bit overboard, don't you think? hm not really hes like Nestea level. i said he has a CHANCE.
Xigua is rank 3 GM korean ladder with 70% win rate.
|
|
|
On December 13 2011 10:41 Moralez wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 10:40 zedi wrote:On December 13 2011 10:39 Moralez wrote:
Just notice hes rank ELEVEN on KR GM ladder... holy shit prolly the best non KR placement ever.. TOo bad he doesnt want to stay in KR he would have a chance to win code S... Right. That's a bit overboard, don't you think? hm not really hes like Nestea level. i said he has a CHANCE.
Nestea level? Really? And sure, anyone has a chance, but as of right now I could not see him winning it.
|
On December 13 2011 10:41 Moralez wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 10:40 zedi wrote:On December 13 2011 10:39 Moralez wrote:
Just notice hes rank ELEVEN on KR GM ladder... holy shit prolly the best non KR placement ever.. TOo bad he doesnt want to stay in KR he would have a chance to win code S... Right. That's a bit overboard, don't you think? hm not really hes like Nestea level. i said he has a CHANCE.
lmfao nestea level? There is no way you're not trolling. You're really now saying that winning IPL3 and some online tournaments is the same as winning 3 GSLs?
|
If he's Nestea level why didn't he make it out of his Blizz cup group? The only other person who is Nestea level is MVP who did make it out of his group.
|
On December 13 2011 10:43 Itsmedudeman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 10:41 Moralez wrote:On December 13 2011 10:40 zedi wrote:On December 13 2011 10:39 Moralez wrote:
Just notice hes rank ELEVEN on KR GM ladder... holy shit prolly the best non KR placement ever.. TOo bad he doesnt want to stay in KR he would have a chance to win code S... Right. That's a bit overboard, don't you think? hm not really hes like Nestea level. i said he has a CHANCE. Xigua is rank 3 GM korean ladder with 70% win rate.
LOL.... I guess rank on Korea GM just means you're Code A caliber and have a ton of spare time then?
|
On December 13 2011 11:05 fourColo wrote:
If he's Nestea level why didn't he make it out of his Blizz cup group? The only other person who is Nestea level is MVP who did make it out of his group.
MVP isn't Nestea level. He's way better than that.
|
|
|
On December 13 2011 10:41 Moralez wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 10:40 zedi wrote:On December 13 2011 10:39 Moralez wrote:
Just notice hes rank ELEVEN on KR GM ladder... holy shit prolly the best non KR placement ever.. TOo bad he doesnt want to stay in KR he would have a chance to win code S... Right. That's a bit overboard, don't you think? hm not really hes like Nestea level. i said he has a CHANCE.
Yeah he's nestea level because he won IPL3 and ESWC which are definitely equal to winning 3 gsl. Troll aside, ladder rank doesn't mean anything. Any Kr progamer is capable of #1 if he ladders all day long. Laddering too much just means you don't have access to high-level custom games to practice with real opponents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
