|
On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:11 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 15:35 mizenhauer wrote:On September 16 2017 14:53 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 12:25 p1cass0 wrote:
I don't understand why TL writers always underestimate innovations achivements while most posts seem to have different opinion. Even his consistency is denied for certain lose or some bad time. This is HUGE bias. While critisizing inno's one single gsl final four years ago and unproductive 2016 again and again, you seem to have forgot that any other players you flattered had much more awkward moments, and how inno made them look like Code B player during his prime. Numbers don't lie. INnoVation and Byun have a huge lead in career winrates and HoF points (They both have over 10000 while taeja and life have only about 1500). Considering Byun has gained much more easy points from online/foreign tournaments, there is no doubt that INnoVation ist the BEST player ever. If he's not GOOD enough to become GOAT, you will never have one.
The only thing INnoVation lacks to become the undisputed GOAT is a Blzcon Champion, like Messi's lack of World Cup. He' s ahead in every other important aspect. I could accept (not agree) putting Life over Inno, not anyone else. Because he has Blzcon, Korean Starleagues, and he was good. Talking Mvp has one more GSL Titles (maybe until today) is totally unfair. If there were like 9 GSLs per year from 2013 to 2017 and all those Kespa players Stats, Zest, TY, sos, Soo, Dark, herO ect. except INno himself are still playing Broodwar, he might have 20. TL writers just hate Inno for some reason (Mizenhauer even admitted it) and don't want to realize the truth so they write 1000 articles on why Mvp is the goat despite having less achievements because he won with a broken back. We're individuals, not some collective entity. I know you pointed me out specifically (which I appreciate), but for some reason people seem to think we're some hive mind coven bent on selling Inno short or boosting TaeJa's reputation. The fact that our opinions align is not some conspiracy. I know it's not a conspiracy but with you, Olli and previously Stuchiu there are already 3 TL writers with a huge anti-Inno bias. I don't particularly like INnoVation, but I'm not ignorant to his achievements. A big part of being the GOAT to me is significance to the history of the game. Mvp will forever be a pillar of StarCraft 2. What he did to not just shape strategy, but define what it meant to be a champion was unprecedented and still unmatched. As for inno, one could argue that soO is far more important to the history of StarCraft 2 despite being the less decorated player. Inno is the most winningest player in StarCraft 2, but by my definition that doesn't make him the GOAT even if he wins GSL.
but I think this "significance to the history of the game" is 99% subjective and shouldn't be valued because everyone has a different opinion on it. I could argue that Inno was way more important for that because he refined terran strategies for 4 years with everyone else copying him. I just don't think anything except pure results should be counted because it's the only thing that is (somewhat) objectively measurable. The rest is just bias. I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking.
Yes every GSL win is pretty much the same if we don't go into further detail about different eras. Why? Because the whole kroean field wants to win it. Every korean tries to win it. That creates a consistent competitive level.
Your dreamhack example doesn't work because the playing field was different there.
On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:11 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 15:35 mizenhauer wrote:On September 16 2017 14:53 Charoisaur wrote:
[quote]
TL writers just hate Inno for some reason (Mizenhauer even admitted it) and don't want to realize the truth so they write 1000 articles on why Mvp is the goat despite having less achievements because he won with a broken back.
We're individuals, not some collective entity. I know you pointed me out specifically (which I appreciate), but for some reason people seem to think we're some hive mind coven bent on selling Inno short or boosting TaeJa's reputation. The fact that our opinions align is not some conspiracy. I know it's not a conspiracy but with you, Olli and previously Stuchiu there are already 3 TL writers with a huge anti-Inno bias. I don't particularly like INnoVation, but I'm not ignorant to his achievements. A big part of being the GOAT to me is significance to the history of the game. Mvp will forever be a pillar of StarCraft 2. What he did to not just shape strategy, but define what it meant to be a champion was unprecedented and still unmatched. As for inno, one could argue that soO is far more important to the history of StarCraft 2 despite being the less decorated player. Inno is the most winningest player in StarCraft 2, but by my definition that doesn't make him the GOAT even if he wins GSL.
but I think this "significance to the history of the game" is 99% subjective and shouldn't be valued because everyone has a different opinion on it. I could argue that Inno was way more important for that because he refined terran strategies for 4 years with everyone else copying him. I just don't think anything except pure results should be counted because it's the only thing that is (somewhat) objectively measurable. The rest is just bias. I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them.
Ofc it does matter. In fact the exact path doesn't really matter. Every time an "upset" happens it simply means the underdog on paper was better at that time. Ofc this is a bit simplified but over a big enough sample size everything basically evens out towards that.
In theory looking at the path would be better if you could make sure to be extremely precise with how good each player was at the exact time at the matchup. But that's not possible and anyone who says he actually accomplished it is full of shit. Not to mention that even specific matchup rankings would not be 100% accurate because different styles of players can also make a difference.
|
On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:11 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 15:35 mizenhauer wrote:On September 16 2017 14:53 Charoisaur wrote:
[quote]
TL writers just hate Inno for some reason (Mizenhauer even admitted it) and don't want to realize the truth so they write 1000 articles on why Mvp is the goat despite having less achievements because he won with a broken back.
We're individuals, not some collective entity. I know you pointed me out specifically (which I appreciate), but for some reason people seem to think we're some hive mind coven bent on selling Inno short or boosting TaeJa's reputation. The fact that our opinions align is not some conspiracy. I know it's not a conspiracy but with you, Olli and previously Stuchiu there are already 3 TL writers with a huge anti-Inno bias. I don't particularly like INnoVation, but I'm not ignorant to his achievements. A big part of being the GOAT to me is significance to the history of the game. Mvp will forever be a pillar of StarCraft 2. What he did to not just shape strategy, but define what it meant to be a champion was unprecedented and still unmatched. As for inno, one could argue that soO is far more important to the history of StarCraft 2 despite being the less decorated player. Inno is the most winningest player in StarCraft 2, but by my definition that doesn't make him the GOAT even if he wins GSL.
but I think this "significance to the history of the game" is 99% subjective and shouldn't be valued because everyone has a different opinion on it. I could argue that Inno was way more important for that because he refined terran strategies for 4 years with everyone else copying him. I just don't think anything except pure results should be counted because it's the only thing that is (somewhat) objectively measurable. The rest is just bias. I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them.
when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them.
Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5.
Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On September 16 2017 20:40 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:11 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 15:35 mizenhauer wrote:
[quote]
We're individuals, not some collective entity. I know you pointed me out specifically (which I appreciate), but for some reason people seem to think we're some hive mind coven bent on selling Inno short or boosting TaeJa's reputation. The fact that our opinions align is not some conspiracy.
I know it's not a conspiracy but with you, Olli and previously Stuchiu there are already 3 TL writers with a huge anti-Inno bias. I don't particularly like INnoVation, but I'm not ignorant to his achievements. A big part of being the GOAT to me is significance to the history of the game. Mvp will forever be a pillar of StarCraft 2. What he did to not just shape strategy, but define what it meant to be a champion was unprecedented and still unmatched. As for inno, one could argue that soO is far more important to the history of StarCraft 2 despite being the less decorated player. Inno is the most winningest player in StarCraft 2, but by my definition that doesn't make him the GOAT even if he wins GSL.
but I think this "significance to the history of the game" is 99% subjective and shouldn't be valued because everyone has a different opinion on it. I could argue that Inno was way more important for that because he refined terran strategies for 4 years with everyone else copying him. I just don't think anything except pure results should be counted because it's the only thing that is (somewhat) objectively measurable. The rest is just bias. I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them. when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them. Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5. Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap.
This is based on the idea that the better player always wins, which pretty much every pro will tell you is nonsense.
|
On September 16 2017 20:43 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:40 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:11 Charoisaur wrote:
[quote]
I know it's not a conspiracy but with you, Olli and previously Stuchiu there are already 3 TL writers with a huge anti-Inno bias.
[quote]
but I think this "significance to the history of the game" is 99% subjective and shouldn't be valued because everyone has a different opinion on it. I could argue that Inno was way more important for that because he refined terran strategies for 4 years with everyone else copying him.
I just don't think anything except pure results should be counted because it's the only thing that is (somewhat) objectively measurable. The rest is just bias. I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them. when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them. Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5. Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap. This is based on the idea that the better player always wins, which pretty much every pro will tell you is nonsense.
This is a question of philosophy basically. "Better" means winning the game. Anything else is purely hypothetical.
|
United States1916 Posts
On September 16 2017 20:40 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:11 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 15:35 mizenhauer wrote:
[quote]
We're individuals, not some collective entity. I know you pointed me out specifically (which I appreciate), but for some reason people seem to think we're some hive mind coven bent on selling Inno short or boosting TaeJa's reputation. The fact that our opinions align is not some conspiracy.
I know it's not a conspiracy but with you, Olli and previously Stuchiu there are already 3 TL writers with a huge anti-Inno bias. I don't particularly like INnoVation, but I'm not ignorant to his achievements. A big part of being the GOAT to me is significance to the history of the game. Mvp will forever be a pillar of StarCraft 2. What he did to not just shape strategy, but define what it meant to be a champion was unprecedented and still unmatched. As for inno, one could argue that soO is far more important to the history of StarCraft 2 despite being the less decorated player. Inno is the most winningest player in StarCraft 2, but by my definition that doesn't make him the GOAT even if he wins GSL.
but I think this "significance to the history of the game" is 99% subjective and shouldn't be valued because everyone has a different opinion on it. I could argue that Inno was way more important for that because he refined terran strategies for 4 years with everyone else copying him. I just don't think anything except pure results should be counted because it's the only thing that is (somewhat) objectively measurable. The rest is just bias. I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them. when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them. Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5. Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap.
Winning one series does not make you a better player, it just means you played better that series. Trap outplayed TY in one series, but was likely the worse player throughout the course of the tournament. Compare this to WESG where Maru was by far a better player than TY throughout the entire tournament (if you recall he didn't drop a match until the finals), but we all know who won in the Bo7 when they finally played. Form fluctuates from series to series, but it's usually clear which player is objectively better. This is why every liquibet isn't a 50/50 split. One player is always the favorite and almost always for good reason.
|
On September 16 2017 20:30 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:19 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 20:17 ejozl wrote:On September 16 2017 20:03 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 18:19 ejozl wrote:On September 16 2017 07:45 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 07:42 Alarak89 wrote:On September 16 2017 07:39 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 07:13 Alarak89 wrote:On September 16 2017 07:03 pvsnp wrote:
[quote]
I would agree that GOAT cannot be determined by this GSL alone. If Inno wins he will be closer, true, but it still wouldn't be incontestable. To make him GOAT, I would expect Inno to win at least one more Starleague (most Starleagues) and two more weekenders (most trophies) on top of this GSL.
sOs on the other hand is nowhere close to being GOAT. He hasn't won a single Starleague yet. And who defined Starleague have more weight than other tournaments? Everyone can have his own definition of GOAT, I can say No Blizzcon title No GOAT for example. The progamers defined it. And their definiton holds more weight than yours, I'm afraid. Your idol, sOs said himself that winning GSL is about the prestige, not the money. And countless players (ofc including Bogus) said going to Blizzcon "is about the prestige" (and the money) as well. If you are going to seriously argue that being the best out of 8 foreigners and 8 Koreans over a couple days is somehow superior to being best out of 32 Koreans (or maybe with a few foreigners these days) over a couple months..... .....yeah, there's no point in continuing this discussion. A Starleague requires more skill to win, and that should simply be self-evident. Blizzcon also factors in how you did the entire year. It's supposed to be the culmination and end all tournament and I think it is. I personally value Blizzcon higher than GSL and I think a lot of players do as well. I agree that Blizzcon was more stacked pre WCS top 8 KR top 8, but the tournament still holds more prestige IMO. Blizzcon does have more prestige, because bigger $$$ prizepool, there's more PR and hype, and the winner gets the title of World Champion. But a Starleague takes more skill to win. I don't disagree, but you yourself said that to be GOAT you have to be the most accomplished. I'm saying that a Blizzcon win is more accomplishing than a GSL title. Why? If GOAT is a measurement of skill, as it should be, then we measure accomplishments because there is no way to directly and objectively measure skill. Accomplishments are (theoretically at least) the product of skill, so the biggest accomplishments are those which require the highest skill to achieve. i.e, GSL I think Blizzcon has a bigger entry and I think it's more top heavy as well. It's very easy to imagine, lets say, TY vs Stats finals. This could easily happen in both GSL and Blizzcon, but I think winning that match in Blizzcon holds more value, since there's the prestige of Blizzcon and everything that comes with it. They both will try and peak their skill around Blizzcon because it's the one they want the most, they will both have the biggest jitters here and mind games will have a bigger impact since both will be so focused on winning. If it was only about the player pool then an olimoleague or Ballistix Brawl could hold more value than a GSL and I think that's the wrong way to look at it.
Well, at that point you are trying to factor in unquantifiable factors like how much each player "wants" to win a tournament. While that distinction is clear between online and offline tournaments, for instance, I don't know how you can really draw that distinction between GSL and Blizzcon.
Sure, players probably "want" to win a Blizzcon more, but how large is that difference? And if you decide to consider factors like that, why not consider the factors of flying to the US, of practice partners available, of some player getting sick, or a thousand others?
I prefer to stick to the (reasonably) quantifiable, objective measures, like time, player pool, and trophies.
|
On September 16 2017 20:47 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:40 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:11 Charoisaur wrote:
[quote]
I know it's not a conspiracy but with you, Olli and previously Stuchiu there are already 3 TL writers with a huge anti-Inno bias.
[quote]
but I think this "significance to the history of the game" is 99% subjective and shouldn't be valued because everyone has a different opinion on it. I could argue that Inno was way more important for that because he refined terran strategies for 4 years with everyone else copying him.
I just don't think anything except pure results should be counted because it's the only thing that is (somewhat) objectively measurable. The rest is just bias. I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them. when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them. Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5. Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap. Winning one series does not make you a better player, it just means you played better that series. Trap outplayed TY in one series, but was likely the worse player throughout the course of the tournament. Compare this to WESG where Maru was by far a better player than TY throughout the entire tournament (if you recall he didn't drop a match until the finals), but we all know who won in the Bo7 when they finally played. Form fluctuates from series to series, but it's usually clear which player is objectively better. This is why every liquibet isn't a 50/50 split. One player is always the favorite and almost always for good reason.
Past results are used to create a hypothetical model to judge players against each other. It oftentimes works because starcraft isn't as random as some people sometimes want you to believe. TY getting to the finals as well means he wasn't worse than Maru, he did exactly what he had to do. Win all the matches. And he won the last one as well. He was better.
This is exactly where this bias comes in, the "eye test". If you don't win your games this eye test means nothing, if you win your games it doesn't matter how close it was.
Korean tournaments give us the context. The competition is consistent, every notable korean player participates in every single tournament. That is the reason we are confident that each GSL is worth about the same.
Not because of the name of the tournament (as olli implied) but because the lvl of competition is fairly consistent (neglecting different eras with different players, retirements, etc)
|
United States1916 Posts
On September 16 2017 20:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:47 mizenhauer wrote:On September 16 2017 20:40 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:
[quote]
I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them. when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them. Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5. Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap. Winning one series does not make you a better player, it just means you played better that series. Trap outplayed TY in one series, but was likely the worse player throughout the course of the tournament. Compare this to WESG where Maru was by far a better player than TY throughout the entire tournament (if you recall he didn't drop a match until the finals), but we all know who won in the Bo7 when they finally played. Form fluctuates from series to series, but it's usually clear which player is objectively better. This is why every liquibet isn't a 50/50 split. One player is always the favorite and almost always for good reason. Past results are used to create a hypothetical model to judge players against each other. It oftentimes works because starcraft isn't as random as some people sometimes want you to believe. TY getting to the finals as well means he wasn't worse than Maru, he did exactly what he had to do. Win all the matches. And he won the last one as well. He was better. This is exactly where this bias comes in, the "eye test". If you don't win your games this eye test means nothing, if you win your games it doesn't matter how close it was. Korean tournaments give us the context. The competition is consistent, every notable korean player participates in every single tournament. That is the reason we are confident that each GSL is worth about the same. Not because of the name of the tournament (as olli implied) but because the lvl of competition is fairly consistent (neglecting different eras with different players, retirements, etc)
Professional players who were at the event said Maru was better that weekend. But they don't know anything...
|
On September 16 2017 20:47 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:40 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:11 Charoisaur wrote:
[quote]
I know it's not a conspiracy but with you, Olli and previously Stuchiu there are already 3 TL writers with a huge anti-Inno bias.
[quote]
but I think this "significance to the history of the game" is 99% subjective and shouldn't be valued because everyone has a different opinion on it. I could argue that Inno was way more important for that because he refined terran strategies for 4 years with everyone else copying him.
I just don't think anything except pure results should be counted because it's the only thing that is (somewhat) objectively measurable. The rest is just bias. I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them. when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them. Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5. Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap. Winning one series does not make you a better player, it just means you played better that series.
which means you are in a better form at that point.
Sure, form flunctuates from series to series but that's also true for beating an on paper "better" player.
He may play amazing all tournament, then choke in 1 series and it will be called an amazing accomplishment for the player who took him out despite it not being that hard.
That's why my premise is that a player who beats another player is at that tournament better; because form is impossible to accurately measure.
|
On September 16 2017 20:59 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 16 2017 20:47 mizenhauer wrote:On September 16 2017 20:40 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:
[quote]
Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias.
Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them. when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them. Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5. Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap. Winning one series does not make you a better player, it just means you played better that series. Trap outplayed TY in one series, but was likely the worse player throughout the course of the tournament. Compare this to WESG where Maru was by far a better player than TY throughout the entire tournament (if you recall he didn't drop a match until the finals), but we all know who won in the Bo7 when they finally played. Form fluctuates from series to series, but it's usually clear which player is objectively better. This is why every liquibet isn't a 50/50 split. One player is always the favorite and almost always for good reason. Past results are used to create a hypothetical model to judge players against each other. It oftentimes works because starcraft isn't as random as some people sometimes want you to believe. TY getting to the finals as well means he wasn't worse than Maru, he did exactly what he had to do. Win all the matches. And he won the last one as well. He was better. This is exactly where this bias comes in, the "eye test". If you don't win your games this eye test means nothing, if you win your games it doesn't matter how close it was. Korean tournaments give us the context. The competition is consistent, every notable korean player participates in every single tournament. That is the reason we are confident that each GSL is worth about the same. Not because of the name of the tournament (as olli implied) but because the lvl of competition is fairly consistent (neglecting different eras with different players, retirements, etc) Professional players who were at the event said Maru was better that weekend. But they don't know anything...
This is appeal to authority nothing more. As i said before this is basically a philosophical question.
"Better" doesn't mean anything when the objective of starcraft is to win games/matches. That's it, nothing else.
|
On September 16 2017 21:00 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:47 mizenhauer wrote:On September 16 2017 20:40 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:36 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:35 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:34 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:31 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:28 Olli wrote:On September 16 2017 20:23 Charoisaur wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 Olli wrote:
[quote]
I don't have anything against INnoVation. He's just not the greatest player to ever play SCII in my book. If you think I have to have that opinion or otherwise I'm biased, then perhaps you're just a tad bit stubborn. I see him as a close second to Mvp, who, based on what I value in competitors, will take extraordinary things to surpass. INnoVation has already bypassed Life in my book. So I find it really funny whenever that bias argument is brought up. Well, I already said that in my book only results count and the rest is bias. So when you argue that Inno isn't the goat, not because he lacks the achievements but because of the "context" of his wins then that is for me bias. Look, by your reasoning every GSL title is equally impressive. So is every Dreamhack and so on. So when Taeja won DH Bucharest without dropping a map in a bracket with Yugioh, sOs, Life and INnoVation, that's worth the same as him beating Bly, SaSe, Targa and ForGG at DH Summer and dropping maps. And that's stupid. No other way to put it. So no, your criteria are not objective. They're in fact extremely lacking. Imo in fact every GSL title is worth the same. For DHs one has to consider the playing field aka how many top 10-15 koreans play in the tournament. This ofc can't be done 100% objectively but when one looks at the results the participating players had in that period you get a general idea where that tournament ranks in comparison. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to GSL? Why not? because in GSL every single top player is participating every time. That doesn't matter one bit if you never face them. when you face a "weak" opponent who previously eliminated a "better" player then at that tournament the weak player was probably the stronger player out of them. Example: Neeb faced Trap in the Kespa Cup finals who previously eliminated TY in a bo5. Trap may not be as accomplished as TY but at that tournament he was probably in a better form and thus it's at least just as impressive that Neeb beat Trap. Winning one series does not make you a better player, it just means you played better that series. which means you are in a better form at that point. Sure, form flunctuates from series to series but that's also true for beating an on paper "better" player. He may play amazing all tournament, then choke in 1 series and it will be called an amazing accomplishment for the player who took him out despite it not being that hard. That's why my premise is that a player who beats another player is at that tournament better; because form is impossible to accurately measure.
Like in theory it would be better to add as much context as theoretically possible. But it's simply impossible to have al the relevant data and apply it correctly. You would need the exact "elo" of each player in the matchup at that time. You would somehow need to be able to tell at what % of his max potential he is playing at in that match. You would need to think about matchup balance, map balance, the different styles of players and how it affects the match and a lot of other things.
It's absurd to think that anybody can do that. I much rather assume that the game is balanced enough, the consistent competitive field makes sure players deserve the placement they get (on average) and thus basically only results matter.
It's not perfect but at least it is consistent and i don't need to come up with completely subjective and arbitrary criteria.
edit: i mean it would be somewhat possible to have at least the matchup elo for each match and thus judge every single path of each player. But that's also way more work than anyone has ever done and we don't even have a good enough elo system for that especially because of the fact that the tournament scene in sc2 is split and thus not every elo number means the same :/
|
God, if I got a penny every time I read this circlejerk, I'd be richer than $o$
I don't think GOAT is all that difficult to establish. Settle criteria, apply them, see if someone sticks or not. You first need to define them, though. You can't just ad hoc rules that you like or which you an intuitive result. That only ends up feeding on your bias. For example, you could argue that the person with the most tournament wins is the GOAT. Easy enough to calculate if you know how to weigh tournaments. You could also argue that the most influential player, or the MVP of a team could be GOAT. These are the type of people that would consider Michael Jordan above Larry Bird and Kareem Abdul Jabbar in basketball. There are plenty other criteria to consider, and you can also mix and match if you can agree on a weighting procedure.
I understand that writers don't want to do this, because it sucks creativity and subjectivity out of the equation. It's not as interesting nor is it liberating for personal development as a writer. But it's the only way to reach a conclusion that people are going to agree with. If you're wondering why TL news articles don't want to establish a GOAT, look no further. News articles will need to be written long after some criteria are met at some point. So you can't set the SC2 narrative in stone.
But I'd venture to say that in people's minds, the narrative is set. SC2 is in its twilight years, and it's difficult to see anyone surpass Innovation by the end of it. Or Mvp, perhaps Life (if you disregard matchfixing, like some people ignore Mike Tyson's antics). Whichever way this goes in the end, the only way forward is through an objective, rather than a subjective conclusion. Everything else is going to be controversial and fleeting, to be forgotten and repeated over and over in useless internet arguments.
|
If we're talking facts INno is the best of all time sc2 pro, whether best of all time = greatest of all time is a wording problem, but Innovation is without a doubt the best sc2 player to take on the game.
Just for the sake of the argument, let's compare Mvp vs Inno:
Mvp has:
3 GSL's, 1 GSL ST
1 WCS, 1 Blizzcon, 1 WEG, 1 MLG and 1 IEM
Inno has:
3 GSL's, 1 GSL vs World, 1 SSL, 1 VSL
2 IEM's
sure Mvp might have won more tournaments in total, but Innovation has more starlagues.
Inno also has the best teamleague record of all time, he also won a tournament ever year since 2013 - 2017.
Keep in mind, Mvp was strong in the pre-KeSPA era.
Once we headed into 2013 where the KeSPA guys took over Mvp fell off (unfortunately mostly due to his injury, nothing to comment about that).
heading into this era alongside HOTS, the best players were, Inno/Maru(/Taeja???) for T, Life/soO for Z, and a tug of war between Rain, sOs, herO, Classic, Zest, PartinG for P.
Even in this era the people who stand out are Inno and Life and maybe sOs.
once the KeSPA era ended aka last year, the scene took a drastic change.
and INno emerged on the top in both HOTS and LOTV.
Inno has dominated some parts of both era's he's been in and looked super scary, revitalizing mech and bringing P hellbat plays till the point where they needed heavy nerfs to compensate for it, I'd say Inno has surpassed Mvp a long time ago.
|
On September 16 2017 20:53 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:30 ejozl wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 20:17 ejozl wrote:On September 16 2017 20:03 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 18:19 ejozl wrote:On September 16 2017 07:45 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 07:42 Alarak89 wrote:On September 16 2017 07:39 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 07:13 Alarak89 wrote:
[quote]
And who defined Starleague have more weight than other tournaments? Everyone can have his own definition of GOAT, I can say No Blizzcon title No GOAT for example. The progamers defined it. And their definiton holds more weight than yours, I'm afraid. Your idol, sOs said himself that winning GSL is about the prestige, not the money. And countless players (ofc including Bogus) said going to Blizzcon "is about the prestige" (and the money) as well. If you are going to seriously argue that being the best out of 8 foreigners and 8 Koreans over a couple days is somehow superior to being best out of 32 Koreans (or maybe with a few foreigners these days) over a couple months..... .....yeah, there's no point in continuing this discussion. A Starleague requires more skill to win, and that should simply be self-evident. Blizzcon also factors in how you did the entire year. It's supposed to be the culmination and end all tournament and I think it is. I personally value Blizzcon higher than GSL and I think a lot of players do as well. I agree that Blizzcon was more stacked pre WCS top 8 KR top 8, but the tournament still holds more prestige IMO. Blizzcon does have more prestige, because bigger $$$ prizepool, there's more PR and hype, and the winner gets the title of World Champion. But a Starleague takes more skill to win. I don't disagree, but you yourself said that to be GOAT you have to be the most accomplished. I'm saying that a Blizzcon win is more accomplishing than a GSL title. Why? If GOAT is a measurement of skill, as it should be, then we measure accomplishments because there is no way to directly and objectively measure skill. Accomplishments are (theoretically at least) the product of skill, so the biggest accomplishments are those which require the highest skill to achieve. i.e, GSL I think Blizzcon has a bigger entry and I think it's more top heavy as well. It's very easy to imagine, lets say, TY vs Stats finals. This could easily happen in both GSL and Blizzcon, but I think winning that match in Blizzcon holds more value, since there's the prestige of Blizzcon and everything that comes with it. They both will try and peak their skill around Blizzcon because it's the one they want the most, they will both have the biggest jitters here and mind games will have a bigger impact since both will be so focused on winning. If it was only about the player pool then an olimoleague or Ballistix Brawl could hold more value than a GSL and I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Well, at that point you are trying to factor in unquantifiable factors like how much each player "wants" to win a tournament. While that distinction is clear between online and offline tournaments, for instance, I don't know how you can really draw that distinction between GSL and Blizzcon. Sure, players probably "want" to win a Blizzcon more, but how large is that difference? And if you decide to consider factors like that, why not consider the factors of flying to the US, of practice partners available, of some player getting sick, or a thousand others? I prefer to stick to the (reasonably) quantifiable, objective measures, like time, player pool, and trophies.
I'm not saying I value all these factors, I'm saying I value higher stakes the most. Stakes comes from higher prestige. Higher prestige means it's bigger tournament, bigger tournament means more accomplishing than lesser tournaments.
|
People keeps coming with new (or old) thing to minor INno's achievement, INno keeps winning more and more tournaments.
|
As an Innovation fan, I don't think he is GOAT yet. MVP had a shorter career span before his wrists gave out on him. But during MVP's short career span, he racked up around as many titles as Innovation. Innovation has had a longer career span in SC2, playing since 2012 when ProLeague switched over. Prior to this year, Innovation also had a few quiet years, where he was a top Terran player but he wasn't able to win too many Premier tournaments.
Having said that, Innovation has had a stellar year this year. And the level of SC2 today with many of the top ProLeague players remaining in SC2 is harder than when MVP won his titles. If Innovation wins Blizzcon this year, I would say he is the GOAT in SC2 and has achieved more than MVP. But I think he's about on par with MVP right now.
Honorable mentions of best SC2 players of all time also go towards sOs and Life. Great SC2 players, but not quite GOAT would be players like Taeja, Zest, Maru, SoO, Hero, etc.
|
On September 16 2017 21:36 AzAlexZ wrote:
Keep in mind, Mvp was strong in the pre-KeSPA era.
Once we headed into 2013 where the KeSPA guys took over Mvp fell off (unfortunately mostly due to his injury, nothing to comment about that).
heading into this era alongside HOTS, the best players were, Inno/Maru(/Taeja???) for T, Life/soO for Z, and a tug of war between Rain, sOs, herO, Classic, Zest, PartinG for P.
A few players were able to transition from pre-KESPA to post-KESPA quite well. Maru and Life did quite well after KESPA came over. Oddly enough, Byun was a late bloomer but he has been here pre-KESPA.
|
On September 16 2017 22:29 xelnaga_empire wrote:
As an Innovation fan, I don't think he is GOAT yet. MVP had a shorter career span before his wrists gave out on him. But during MVP's short career span, he racked up around as many titles as Innovation. Innovation has had a longer career span in SC2, playing since 2012 when ProLeague switched over. Prior to this year, Innovation also had a few quiet years, where he was a top Terran player but he wasn't able to win too many Premier tournaments.
Having said that, Innovation has had a stellar year this year. And the level of SC2 today with many of the top ProLeague players remaining in SC2 is harder than when MVP won his titles. If Innovation wins Blizzcon this year, I would say he is the GOAT in SC2 and has achieved more than MVP. But I think he's about on par with MVP right now.
Honorable mentions of best SC2 players of all time also go towards sOs and Life. Great SC2 players, but not quite GOAT would be players like Taeja, Zest, Maru, SoO, Hero, etc.
Mvp played in 14 premier tournaments in 2011. Innovation only had 9 so far this year.
Mvp had the chance to win 7 starleagues that year, Inno had 5 this year. Most of Mvp's title were during Gomtvt, it's funny that people usually say Inno only wins when terran is strong. One could easily say that Mvp won most of it during terran being op as well. Just a few things to consider
|
|
|
On September 16 2017 22:07 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 20:53 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 20:30 ejozl wrote:On September 16 2017 20:19 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 20:17 ejozl wrote:On September 16 2017 20:03 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 18:19 ejozl wrote:On September 16 2017 07:45 pvsnp wrote:On September 16 2017 07:42 Alarak89 wrote:On September 16 2017 07:39 pvsnp wrote:
[quote]
The progamers defined it. And their definiton holds more weight than yours, I'm afraid.
Your idol, sOs said himself that winning GSL is about the prestige, not the money. And countless players (ofc including Bogus) said going to Blizzcon "is about the prestige" (and the money) as well. If you are going to seriously argue that being the best out of 8 foreigners and 8 Koreans over a couple days is somehow superior to being best out of 32 Koreans (or maybe with a few foreigners these days) over a couple months..... .....yeah, there's no point in continuing this discussion. A Starleague requires more skill to win, and that should simply be self-evident. Blizzcon also factors in how you did the entire year. It's supposed to be the culmination and end all tournament and I think it is. I personally value Blizzcon higher than GSL and I think a lot of players do as well. I agree that Blizzcon was more stacked pre WCS top 8 KR top 8, but the tournament still holds more prestige IMO. Blizzcon does have more prestige, because bigger $$$ prizepool, there's more PR and hype, and the winner gets the title of World Champion. But a Starleague takes more skill to win. I don't disagree, but you yourself said that to be GOAT you have to be the most accomplished. I'm saying that a Blizzcon win is more accomplishing than a GSL title. Why? If GOAT is a measurement of skill, as it should be, then we measure accomplishments because there is no way to directly and objectively measure skill. Accomplishments are (theoretically at least) the product of skill, so the biggest accomplishments are those which require the highest skill to achieve. i.e, GSL I think Blizzcon has a bigger entry and I think it's more top heavy as well. It's very easy to imagine, lets say, TY vs Stats finals. This could easily happen in both GSL and Blizzcon, but I think winning that match in Blizzcon holds more value, since there's the prestige of Blizzcon and everything that comes with it. They both will try and peak their skill around Blizzcon because it's the one they want the most, they will both have the biggest jitters here and mind games will have a bigger impact since both will be so focused on winning. If it was only about the player pool then an olimoleague or Ballistix Brawl could hold more value than a GSL and I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Well, at that point you are trying to factor in unquantifiable factors like how much each player "wants" to win a tournament. While that distinction is clear between online and offline tournaments, for instance, I don't know how you can really draw that distinction between GSL and Blizzcon. Sure, players probably "want" to win a Blizzcon more, but how large is that difference? And if you decide to consider factors like that, why not consider the factors of flying to the US, of practice partners available, of some player getting sick, or a thousand others? I prefer to stick to the (reasonably) quantifiable, objective measures, like time, player pool, and trophies. I'm not saying I value all these factors, I'm saying I value higher stakes the most. Stakes comes from higher prestige. Higher prestige means it's bigger tournament, bigger tournament means more accomplishing than lesser tournaments.
That makes sense. The question of course is whether stakes translates directly to skill, which you apparently agree with and I disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
