On June 19 2013 01:02 BLinD-RawR wrote: shitstorm averted for today.
We just need sOs, Life and Rain and we're good too go. Then again, OSl wouldn't be OSL if we didn't miss a really good player, if you see what I mean...
On June 19 2013 01:02 BLinD-RawR wrote: shitstorm averted for today.
We just need sOs, Life and Rain and we're good too go. Then again, OSl wouldn't be OSL if we didn't miss a really good player, if you see what I mean...
On June 19 2013 01:02 BLinD-RawR wrote: shitstorm averted for today.
We just need sOs, Life and Rain and we're good too go. Then again, OSl wouldn't be OSL if we didn't miss a really good player, if you see what I mean...
On June 19 2013 01:02 BLinD-RawR wrote: shitstorm averted for today.
We just need sOs, Life and Rain and we're good too go. Then again, OSl wouldn't be OSL if we didn't miss a really good player, if you see what I mean...
well the sun can't shine everywhere.
This post is so good, you deserve a star
Nay, two stars
hehehe
of course for the others that got it but don't particularly like the message + Show Spoiler +
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
Innovation was totally sniped today in his first game. Guess what, he won.
If you are good enough, SC2 rewards the better player in bo1s too.
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
Innovation was totally sniped today in his first game. Guess what, he won.
If you are good enough, SC2 rewards the better player in bo1s too.
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
Emphasis mine, so it is clear what I am replying to.
If there is something I have learned from the SC2 forums and specially reddit, is that most of the current audience care more about the "silly" factors. A prime example is the lack of attention PL gets unless EG-TL wins a match.
No tournament is more legit than OSL, no matter how much unaware SC2 fans are of its history and how much the "this is not Brood War" argument is brought up: it still is the signature individual tournament run by the most stablished eSports organization in the country with the strongest scene. And it is becoming more clear they also have the infrastructure to produce the most skilled players.
Bo1 does emphasize a different mix of skills, but they are not inferior, just different. It is more productive to enjoy the result of this new mix—for example, it makes Flash's starsense look even more impressive— rather than complain. In Fighting Game tournaments, US always plays double elimination while Japan most often plays single elimination. Both formats have certain advantages, but neither is less enjoyable.
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
I disagree with you. A BO3 is as bad as BO1. The true skill is show only on BO9.
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
I disagree with you. A BO3 is as bad as BO1. The true skill is show only on BO9.
Can't prove anything with something less than a Bo21
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
I disagree with you. A BO3 is as bad as BO1. The true skill is show only on BO9.
Can't prove anything with something less than a Bo21
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
I disagree with you. A BO3 is as bad as BO1. The true skill is show only on BO9.
Can't prove anything with something less than a Bo21
Fair point
bo99 is the only true way imo. it has been done before so we know it's viable. do a full round robin between all 32 players, bo99 on 99 different maps, top 16 advance to the ro16 and from there on it's just a single elim bo99 bracket.
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
Emphasis mine, so it is clear what I am replying to.
If there is something I have learned from the SC2 forums and specially reddit, is that most of the current audience care more about the "silly" factors. A prime example is the lack of attention PL gets unless EG-TL wins a match.
No tournament is more legit than OSL, no matter how much unaware SC2 fans are of its history and how much the "this is not Brood War" argument is brought up: it still is the signature individual tournament run by the most stablished eSports organization in the country with the strongest scene. And it is becoming more clear they also have the infrastructure to produce the most skilled players.
Bo1 does emphasize a different mix of skills, but they are not inferior, just different. It is more productive to enjoy the result of this new mix—for example, it makes Flash's starsense look even more impressive— rather than complain. In Fighting Game tournaments, US always plays double elimination while Japan most often plays single elimination. Both formats have certain advantages, but neither is less enjoyable.
At the end of the day, content producers have to please the viewers, not the opposite. You can't brute force something by saying it's 'tradition', 'it's the most efficient system', 'it's the stablished organization', whatever. If enough people bitch about and complain, someone has to give in, and people should complain if they are not pleased That, or OGN says 'fuck SC2, what you want can't fit our schedule'
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
Emphasis mine, so it is clear what I am replying to.
If there is something I have learned from the SC2 forums and specially reddit, is that most of the current audience care more about the "silly" factors. A prime example is the lack of attention PL gets unless EG-TL wins a match.
No tournament is more legit than OSL, no matter how much unaware SC2 fans are of its history and how much the "this is not Brood War" argument is brought up: it still is the signature individual tournament run by the most stablished eSports organization in the country with the strongest scene. And it is becoming more clear they also have the infrastructure to produce the most skilled players.
Bo1 does emphasize a different mix of skills, but they are not inferior, just different. It is more productive to enjoy the result of this new mix—for example, it makes Flash's starsense look even more impressive— rather than complain. In Fighting Game tournaments, US always plays double elimination while Japan most often plays single elimination. Both formats have certain advantages, but neither is less enjoyable.
At the end of the day, content producers have to please the viewers, not the opposite. You can't brute force something by saying it's 'tradition', 'it's the most efficient system', 'it's the stablished organization', whatever. If enough people bitch about and complain, someone has to give in, and people should complain if they are not pleased That, or OGN says 'fuck SC2, what you want can't fit our schedule'
Yes. Because we here on TL really know what korean people, who watch at their homes (TV), want. Oh wait. We are the special snowflake of SC2.
On June 18 2013 19:49 Druss wrote: BO1 is a huge mistake, I hope they will review their rules ASAP.
Uhh no it isn't. The games today have been great.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
Emphasis mine, so it is clear what I am replying to.
If there is something I have learned from the SC2 forums and specially reddit, is that most of the current audience care more about the "silly" factors. A prime example is the lack of attention PL gets unless EG-TL wins a match.
No tournament is more legit than OSL, no matter how much unaware SC2 fans are of its history and how much the "this is not Brood War" argument is brought up: it still is the signature individual tournament run by the most stablished eSports organization in the country with the strongest scene. And it is becoming more clear they also have the infrastructure to produce the most skilled players.
Bo1 does emphasize a different mix of skills, but they are not inferior, just different. It is more productive to enjoy the result of this new mix—for example, it makes Flash's starsense look even more impressive— rather than complain. In Fighting Game tournaments, US always plays double elimination while Japan most often plays single elimination. Both formats have certain advantages, but neither is less enjoyable.
At the end of the day, content producers have to please the viewers, not the opposite. You can't brute force something by saying it's 'tradition', 'it's the most efficient system', 'it's the stablished organization', whatever. If enough people bitch about and complain, someone has to give in, and people should complain if they are not pleased That, or OGN says 'fuck SC2, what you want can't fit our schedule'
Yes. Because we here on TL really know what korean people, who watch at their homes (TV), want. Oh wait. We are the special snowflake of SC2.
Where was I talking about TL in my post, funny guy?
I don't have any numbers aside from the poll in the OP, indeed. But what I'm saying is that, if OGN realizes the majority of its viewers are not pleased with this bo1 format, they have to change, or they'll die embraced with their 'tradition' and 'stablished system' (by 'they', I mean their SC2 tournament). And the only way to know is if things are going wrong is if people complain on forums, twitter, facebook, e-mails (including korean fans. I have no idea what they think about this). Staying silent solves nothing.
That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
Emphasis mine, so it is clear what I am replying to.
If there is something I have learned from the SC2 forums and specially reddit, is that most of the current audience care more about the "silly" factors. A prime example is the lack of attention PL gets unless EG-TL wins a match.
No tournament is more legit than OSL, no matter how much unaware SC2 fans are of its history and how much the "this is not Brood War" argument is brought up: it still is the signature individual tournament run by the most stablished eSports organization in the country with the strongest scene. And it is becoming more clear they also have the infrastructure to produce the most skilled players.
Bo1 does emphasize a different mix of skills, but they are not inferior, just different. It is more productive to enjoy the result of this new mix—for example, it makes Flash's starsense look even more impressive— rather than complain. In Fighting Game tournaments, US always plays double elimination while Japan most often plays single elimination. Both formats have certain advantages, but neither is less enjoyable.
At the end of the day, content producers have to please the viewers, not the opposite. You can't brute force something by saying it's 'tradition', 'it's the most efficient system', 'it's the stablished organization', whatever. If enough people bitch about and complain, someone has to give in, and people should complain if they are not pleased That, or OGN says 'fuck SC2, what you want can't fit our schedule'
Yes. Because we here on TL really know what korean people, who watch at their homes (TV), want. Oh wait. We are the special snowflake of SC2.
Where was I talking about TL in my post, funny guy?
I don't have any numbers aside from the poll in the OP, indeed. But what I'm saying is that, if OGN realizes the majority of its viewers are not pleased with this bo1 format, they have to change, or they'll die embraced with their 'tradition' and 'stablished system' (by 'they', I mean their SC2 tournament). And the only way to know is if things are going wrong is if people complain on forums, twitter, facebook, e-mails (including korean fans. I have no idea what they think about this). Staying silent solves nothing.
What OGN viewers, funniest guy. Everyone complaining is a GSL/Tastosis fanboy. Please come to earth.
On June 18 2013 21:19 nihlon wrote: [quote] That's a strawman. The argument isn't that a bo1 leads to worse games.
If it doesn't lead to worse games and has been a format good enough to maintain an esport scene for 10ish years--what is the argument exactly?
That is because BW was a lot more of a stable game and a good strong player could, a lot of times hold off weird builds or cheeses by just executing his build better, and the later the game got the more you could defeat someone trough superior mechanics. SC2 is a lot more volatile, even after HoTS release, and you run the huge risk that in a BO1 format not the best player will advance.
People don't want to see "the best player" advance, they want to see THEIR FAVORITE player advance. The whole thing is a fallacy. If your favorite player is the underdog mechanically (which alot of tournament winners like Nestea, Stork, etc, are incidentally), and can only hope to win via clever tactics and planning things out on maps, why aren't people crying about them winning in the Bo1 situation? Different Bo's reward different skill sets, one slightly in the favor of another, for the viewer it honestly doesn't matter.
What you fail to take into account is that there might be a large portion of viewers that root for a player because of his skills and dominance, not some other silly factors. For those fans the player earned their viewership trough consistently good play and domination, this is why I was and still am a Mvp fan, this is why I am a Innovation fan, because their play is so good, so crisp, so sharp, that it is inspiring, it is beautiful. When they stop becoming good, I'll remember them for what they where, I'll praise them, and I'll hope they can reach their past glory (as how Mvp has managed to do so), but I will root for the next dominant player. And I am sure I am not the only one that thinks like this.
Your entire argument hinges on BO1 requiring a whole different skill set to legitimize it, and while I agree it does require a slightly different skill set, I'll argue that that is an inferior skill set and this its a bad thing. A BO1 is easier to prepare for because its just one opponent and one map, it will only show clever play, which while fun, doesn't display resilience, adaptability and play under pressure, to quite the same extent, and those are a lot more traits, and a lot more important traits for a champion to have.
A BO3, never mind several, requires so much more preparation, then BO1, it can also involve creativity, but it more so involves adaptability, as a player has more time to study his opponent and tailor his builds and style accordingly, it requires resilience, as you have to play trough and win several games and finally it requires that good mindset, to be able to keep your cool and your focus trough out the series.
And yes for the viewers it matters who advances, it honestly feels like we get cheated out of seeing more good games if players like Flash or Innovation or Soulkey don't advance, because they are so good and capable of so much.
Emphasis mine, so it is clear what I am replying to.
If there is something I have learned from the SC2 forums and specially reddit, is that most of the current audience care more about the "silly" factors. A prime example is the lack of attention PL gets unless EG-TL wins a match.
No tournament is more legit than OSL, no matter how much unaware SC2 fans are of its history and how much the "this is not Brood War" argument is brought up: it still is the signature individual tournament run by the most stablished eSports organization in the country with the strongest scene. And it is becoming more clear they also have the infrastructure to produce the most skilled players.
Bo1 does emphasize a different mix of skills, but they are not inferior, just different. It is more productive to enjoy the result of this new mix—for example, it makes Flash's starsense look even more impressive— rather than complain. In Fighting Game tournaments, US always plays double elimination while Japan most often plays single elimination. Both formats have certain advantages, but neither is less enjoyable.
At the end of the day, content producers have to please the viewers, not the opposite. You can't brute force something by saying it's 'tradition', 'it's the most efficient system', 'it's the stablished organization', whatever. If enough people bitch about and complain, someone has to give in, and people should complain if they are not pleased That, or OGN says 'fuck SC2, what you want can't fit our schedule'
Yes. Because we here on TL really know what korean people, who watch at their homes (TV), want. Oh wait. We are the special snowflake of SC2.
Where was I talking about TL in my post, funny guy?
I don't have any numbers aside from the poll in the OP, indeed. But what I'm saying is that, if OGN realizes the majority of its viewers are not pleased with this bo1 format, they have to change, or they'll die embraced with their 'tradition' and 'stablished system' (by 'they', I mean their SC2 tournament). And the only way to know is if things are going wrong is if people complain on forums, twitter, facebook, e-mails (including korean fans. I have no idea what they think about this). Staying silent solves nothing.
What OGN viewers, funniest guy. Everyone complaining is a GSL/Tastosis fanboy. Please come to earth.
As I said, I have no idea what korean viewers think. Are you sure they are all ok with bo1? If so, fine.
Also, these GSL/Tastosis fanboys should have some value to them, otherwise there wouldn't be an english stream and an OGN guy talking to people on reddit talking to fans. As far as I know, SC2 is not that popular in Korea, so these people 'fanboys' probably interest them
EPT
