|
On August 30 2012 02:13 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:11 nojok wrote:On August 30 2012 02:02 hunts wrote:
Bo1 format is just idiotic. Honestly when GSL is Bo3 from the start and every real tournament is as well it makes me view OSL as some joke online tournament or like the blizzard cup that was Bo1 round robin. I don't know why people think OSL is the best, Bo1 will never bring the best games and it will never ensure the players who deserve to advance do so. TV show vs online TV, the money & the fame come from big audience & OSL will raise the standard by a lot. Besides it's not one bo1 it's 3 bo1 & even with one win you often can play tiebreaker so it's not that random. But it is random, it's infinitely easier to win a couple BO1s than to win a couple BO3's like GSL and every other real tournament requires. I'm sorry but after seeing the format I just can't take OSL seriously.
Round Robin format allows the best player overall to advance. A player with better understanding of the game and/or better mechanics is able to play against different opponents on different maps.
A Bo3 format allows players to prepare specifically against the other players. Bo3 is more mind games.
That's how I understood it, anyways
|
On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning.
Your argument doesn't hold up from a simple statistics point of view. If it is 'really easy' for someone to get lucky and take a game off a much better player, the odds of them getting lucky twice in a BO3 series are not that much lesser than doing so once in a BO1. And the psychological / extra preparation aspect of BO1 with groups split over several days really favours the more consistent, less 'lucky' players. Of course it might not be so obvious right now when half the players are still massive unknowns and the other half is not quite familiar with the setting (and perhaps isn't taking it as seriously as they could), but yeah.
|
On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning.
jesus you people be crying 6 months from now when OSL will be the most important thing and the only thing to watch
edit : do you actually know why MKP / MVP seem to play worst than usual ? it's because to them OSL is about 100 times more important and stressful than GSL
you could clearly see it watching MKP headshots during the game
|
On August 30 2012 02:56 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning. jesus you people be crying 6 months from now when OSL will be the most important thing and the only thing to watch edit : do you actually know why MKP / MVP seem to play worst than usual ? it's because to them OSL is about 100 times more important and stressful than GSL you could clearly see it watching MKP headshots during the game
Also, you can't discount the fact that up until a day before the matches, they didn't even know whether they would participate due to the eSF boycott.
|
On August 29 2012 01:30 Twinkle Toes wrote:
I had to take time before posting this to make sure what I write is at the very least objective and not a rant of a moronic hater. I admit, during the games, and perhaps even tomorrow, I will cheer as hard for ESF players against KeSPA, screaming every now and then things like "Go roll this noob" or "lol ESF > KeSPA". But all that is just for hype and nothing personal at all. I will still cheer for GSL players mainly because I know them, and partly because a little competition among the fans is good. Anyway, having established that, I want to have a little discussion on what we observed and learned from the first day of official clash between the highly regarded sc1 players and our heroes, the "seniors" of sc2. Here's what I learned:
1, Fuck micro and multitask. The rumors are true, in terms of micro and multitask, indeed sc1 >>> sc2 players.. Nestea and even Parting where simply outclassed in these areas. Parting won, but only because he had the good sense to see what Ty was doing and and the right reaction to it. Fantasy's marine micro might be the best I've seen, better than MMA even, and those drop harass + macro is impeccable.
2. Kespa players are not ahead, not yet. It is safe to say that GSL players still have a very slight advantage. I will not speculate whether it will hold or Kespa will take over. Both have an equal chance to improve at this point, so let's see how they adjust.
3. Experience counts. DRG and Parting won by sheer force of slyness and knowledge of the game.
4. Flash is nothing special. I will not speculate what is happening to him since I
At least finish your OP lol
|
On August 30 2012 02:54 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning. Your argument doesn't hold up from a simple statistics point of view. If it is 'really easy' for someone to get lucky and take a game off a much better player, the odds of them getting lucky twice in a BO3 series are not that much lesser than doing so once in a BO1. And the psychological / extra preparation aspect of BO1 with groups split over several days really favours the more consistent, less 'lucky' players. Of course it might not be so obvious right now when half the players are still massive unknowns and the other half is not quite familiar with the setting (and perhaps isn't taking it as seriously as they could), but yeah.
It would be really easy to get lucky if both players just grab random builds every game, but there's also the metagaming aspect.
|
still that bo1 tournament is very random results mvp and marikeking got destroyed only cause they dont know oponents or uderstimate them or bad build older just Bo1 is just very random even bronze can win over gm in it if he dont play normal or better... Bo3 is just better way to compare kespa and gsl players in sc2, bo1 just allow kespa players to catch up fast with little build older luck not by skill .....
|
On August 30 2012 03:47 CamoPillbox wrote:
still that bo1 tournament is very random results mvp and marikeking got destroyed only cause they dont know oponents or uderstimate them or bad build older just Bo1 is just very random even bronze can win over gm in it if he dont play normal or better... Bo3 is just better way to compare kespa and gsl players in sc2, bo1 just allow kespa players to catch up fast with little build older luck not by skill .....
nice try
User was warned for this post
|
Going to be interesting to see someone like Flash take on the foreign macro powerhouses. In terms of scary build orders, Kas, Thorzain, Stephano and Ret are a league above nearly everyone else.
|
On August 29 2012 01:30 Twinkle Toes wrote:
4. Flash is nothing special.
Flash just need more time.
From KT's Coach Clide interview. Source(Chinese): http://sc2.plu.cn/info/2012-08-29/48358.html
"After watching Flash's SC2 FPV, I realised that he really is a gifted player."
|
On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning.
Haha these nonhardcore fans supported TL for like 10 years man. No one is feeling threatened by you.
|
On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning.
OSL is the most prized and successful esports tournament in the world for a reason. Your dislike of it doesn't make it any less so.
|
On August 30 2012 04:30 vesicular wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning. OSL is the most prized and successful esports tournament in the world for a reason. Your dislike of it doesn't make it any less so.
The guy's a troll and not very good at it. The general stupidity of the side he supposedly supports managed to make me overlook that fact as well.
|
What I learned. Best of ones suck in starcraft 2. For players and fans alike.
|
On August 30 2012 02:20 Monsen wrote:
Flash is nothing special...
Are you high?
That kid held 2400+ Elo for a bazillion months in a row in a system where 2200 was considered elite and 2300 "god (s-class) tier". And against the toughest competition on the planet no less- pretty sure he is special. These puny few months of SC2 mean nothing as an indicator for his talents.
Are you fucking high and retarded?
OP obviously meant SC2 lol.
|
On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning.
LOL. The OSL ro16 isn't just a bo1 silly. Its group play like many other tourneys out there... Its just spread over time, which is what makes each game so much more epic. Wait for the groups to be complete before you go on talking about luck or whatever. If a guy 2-0s his group chances are hes the better player. Bo3 group plays would be kinda ridiculous.
Ro8 will be best of series so just chill and wait it out. People these days are so stuck in the moment they can't think ahead for two minutes.
And yes I agree with your bo1 vs bo3 rant. Its just that this isn't designed to be a bo1, its designed to be group play.
Edit: Also I'm interested to know if the finals is gonna be a bo5 or bo7. I'm REALLY hoping its a bo5 like before. Its a lot more intense then. Check out http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=353256
|
On August 30 2012 02:20 Monsen wrote:
Flash is nothing special...
Are you high?
That kid held 2400+ Elo for a bazillion months in a row in a system where 2200 was considered elite and 2300 "god (s-class) tier". And against the toughest competition on the planet no less- pretty sure he is special. These puny few months of SC2 mean nothing as an indicator for his talents.
To add to that it took him from 07 to reach god status in 11-12. Hes going to need a similar HUGE time window to turn into the monster that he is(/was  ) in bw
He can and will be great in a couple months. But to reach god status all the starts literally have to align.
|
On August 29 2012 02:25 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 02:20 Gosi wrote:
Really look at Flash playing sc2 just of now. I say with no shame that he has the best macro and resource management showed up to date in sc2. It's really off the hook and when he can use that + his overall mechanics with alot better understanding of sc2 (aka understand the game inside and out) he will rise to god tier once again. Flash had good macro. But honestly, he went for a super early 3rd that was unpunished and then both sides just went passive. I am sure a lot of terrans could macro like that in such a passive game.
Indeed you really have to want to see that one. Perfect macro in a passive game is not even close to the same achievement as it was in BW. I'd go so far as to say its standard for most S-Class terrans, which I'm sure he will be before too long if kespa doesn't pull them out again. We need to see more games, the datasets just too small.
|
United States10328 Posts
On August 30 2012 05:35 Kal_rA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:20 Monsen wrote:
Flash is nothing special...
Are you high?
That kid held 2400+ Elo for a bazillion months in a row in a system where 2200 was considered elite and 2300 "god (s-class) tier". And against the toughest competition on the planet no less- pretty sure he is special. These puny few months of SC2 mean nothing as an indicator for his talents. To add to that it took him from 07 to reach god status in 11-12. Hes going to need a similar HUGE time window to turn into the monster that he is(/was ) in bw
He reached god tier in Fall 09.
On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning.
So you've discussed why it's not good to have Bo1 matches during an elimination stage! Great! This is a round-robin group stage!
Furthermore (as I've stated so many times already...), OGN, being an actual TV channel with other programming, can't afford (without a lot of work) to broadcast 4 Bo3s in one day, or more than twice a week.
I do agree, however, that upsets often happen in group stages (but apparently everyone hates upsets...). Flash lost to sSak and Classic in MSL and Hyuk and Kal in OSL sometime in 2011, and boom, out of both leagues. It's an occupational hazard.
|
On August 30 2012 02:48 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 02:43 Salazarz wrote:
Actually, if anything, BO1 is LESS random than BO3 if you think about it. Players are much more likely to do very one-dimensional (super greedy or super aggressive all-in/cheesy) builds in a multi-match series, whereas to cheese when playing a BO1 (be it aggressive or eco-cheese) requires massive balls and luck. Players are more likely to play conservative and safe, bringing out their most refined builds that they are most confident in. Also, with each player only having one match every few days during group stage means there is a ton of prep-time for each game, which always leads to better games.
Of course nerves play a bigger part in BO1, especially once you get to the games that decide whether you advance or get eliminated for sure - but that is also a very good thing; how many awful GSL finals have we watched just because one of the finalists ends up throwing the games completely due to nerves? If the players who can't handle pressure get filtered out in groups, all the better. Sorry but no matter how you spin it BO1s are NOT good. This has been discussed to death, mainly during the GSL blizzard cup where everyone basically agreed that the games didn't mean anything because they were BO1. It's too easy for someone to get lucky and take a game off a better player, it's much less likely for them to take a BO3. Until OSL switches to a BO3 format I guess it will have to continue being just that: for the non hardcore fans who don't care about the best players winning.
Well its worked well for the past 10 years even if it was for BW and it seems to be doing its job well in SC2. When I watch the GSL, the players dont seem to take it so seriously in the Bo3. The situation is completely different in the Bo1 roundrobin format everytime the camera zooms into their facial expressions. Maybe its the whole KeSPA vs ESF thing, but Bo1s means every win counts -> players tend to prepare more -> games are tend to be really good as most players opt for safe builds -> cheeses/allins take more balls than in a Bo3 series -> filters out the players with nerve issues which imo isn't a formula for a winning player.
Add your argument about the so called "best players" winning is moot because the best player on that day will win regardless of it being Bo1 or Bo3. Luck can be involved, but MVP agrees that a little bit of it must follow for you to win the tournament.
I also tend to think OSL production/hype/story (been watching OSLs from a long time ago) is much better than GSL even if the latter has more games to watch and more prize money on the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
