|
On October 31 2017 05:48 Fatam wrote:
Honestly one of the biggest problems is using Best of 3 series. SC2 is way too volatile for tournaments to be using bo3's to decide important matches.
(Obviously, it's understandable why they do it, there are time/money/etc. restraints. It's just unfortunate.)
Playing devil's advocate, the argument FOR bo3's might be that standard, machine-like macro players like innovation will almost always win the longer you make series, and cheekier, creative players like sOs would suffer, and that could be bad for the diversity of the game. Not to mention less upsets/wild things happening = less hype for the game. It's interesting to think about, either way.
Inno tried to play super-macro, straight-up, mechanical-god style in a longer series......and Soulkey reverse-swept him.
Bo7's don't favor extremely predictable players. They do favor the more skilled player overall. It's simple probability.
|
On October 31 2017 06:26 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 04:56 FrkFrJss wrote:On October 31 2017 04:36 pvsnp wrote:On October 31 2017 04:23 FrkFrJss wrote:On October 31 2017 03:40 Charoisaur wrote:On October 31 2017 02:26 FrkFrJss wrote:On October 31 2017 02:19 Fango wrote:On October 31 2017 02:12 youngjiddle wrote:On October 30 2017 21:50 Boggyb wrote:On October 30 2017 14:49 FrkFrJss wrote:
[quote]
In a tournament like this, where the best Koreans and the best Foreigners meet, there's bound to be people who don't perform as well as they did in their original circuits as well as people who outperform their performance.
Even aside from Neeb and Major, look at Stats and Dark. I don't think most people thought that they would be out of the tournament (mostly anyways), but here we are.
That's why Blizzard swapped from a straight 16 man tournament with bests of 5 to GSL style groups with bests of 3. More volatility = more chance of non-Koreans winning. lmao, keep finding excuses. It's not really an excuse. bo3 series by default have a greater chance for an upset/the lesser player is more likely to win. That is very true, and there is no doubt that helped and has helped foreigners win. However, it does seem like the talk shifted from "foreigners only being able to beat Koreans in bo1s or online but rarely in an offline series of any length" to "foreigners are only able to beat Koreans because bo3s are too volatile." At some point people will have to stop blaming the format or jet lag or meta changes as the main reasons why foreigners are able to beat top level Koreans. Is that surprising? The number of korean pros is significantly lower than a few years ago, a lot of top players are either retired or past their peak and there are no teamhouses anymore. The scene is just much less competitive now so obviously foreigners have a better shot at winning. Also foreigners winning bo3s isn't unheard of, even at the height of the Kespa era Snute/Scarlett/Naniwa won bo3s against top koreans. Except that the foreigners here aren't winning against aLive or Keen. They're winning against the best of the best Koreans. Sure, the overall scene is less competitive, but at the highest level, they as good or better than they were before. And yes, top foreigners can always take bo3s off of top Koreans, but do they do it all at the same time? Usually it's in one tournament where a foreigner takes off a bo3, but it's rarely that most of the foreigners in single tournament either taking bo3s off of top ten Koreans or making the series competitive. If the best of the best Koreans are playing like shit, are they really the best of the best? Sure, you can say they are only human and having an off day, but that most certainly puts an asterisk next to the foreigners beating them. TY vs Stats at Blizzcon was a clown fiesta. Nowhere close to the same league as TY vs Stats at Katowice. Form definitely varies from time to time, and Stats did look rather lost. I would be down for giving Koreans this benefit of a doubt if we also did that when foreigners underperformed or just lost. Because the thing is, regardless of whether or not the excuses are legitimate, there are so many ways we excuse the top Koreans for losing to foreigners but not the other way around. Instead, we pounce on any weakness of the foreigners to show that the gap is still there. When they lose, we call them overhyped or overrated. Or we laud the skill of the Koreans and say that they were so good, they made the foreigners look awful. Thus might be true for some people, but why don't we treat them like the Koreans and just say that they had a bad day? I'll make excuses for Neeb. He was by far the best non-Korean player this year and he was rewarded with two players whose best match up is currently ZvP and one of those is the hottest players at the moment (Rogue). I think there is a decent chance he gets out of any of the other 3 groups with Group C being the lowest chance. Elazer got to ZvZ his way into the ro8 and SpeCial had the Korean on the biggest slump (TY). Yes, SpeCial also beat recent SSL Champion which is impressive, but Neeb also won a bo3 against a recent Korean champion.
If Neeb got group A instead of Snute, I have almost no doubt that he would have gotten out of the group. Neeb had a great chance of beating herO, probably loses to TY but beats Special like he has for most of the year already. Also, while you make fair points and I somewhat agree, Neeb also only had to practice for one match up but chose to neglect to practice against any of that race's aggressive/cheesy builds. He had to know that Rogue wouldn't allow him to play a macro game after losing the way he did in their first series.
|
On October 31 2017 07:48 breaker1328 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 06:26 Boggyb wrote:On October 31 2017 04:56 FrkFrJss wrote:On October 31 2017 04:36 pvsnp wrote:On October 31 2017 04:23 FrkFrJss wrote:On October 31 2017 03:40 Charoisaur wrote:On October 31 2017 02:26 FrkFrJss wrote:On October 31 2017 02:19 Fango wrote:On October 31 2017 02:12 youngjiddle wrote:On October 30 2017 21:50 Boggyb wrote:
[quote]
That's why Blizzard swapped from a straight 16 man tournament with bests of 5 to GSL style groups with bests of 3. More volatility = more chance of non-Koreans winning. lmao, keep finding excuses. It's not really an excuse. bo3 series by default have a greater chance for an upset/the lesser player is more likely to win. That is very true, and there is no doubt that helped and has helped foreigners win. However, it does seem like the talk shifted from "foreigners only being able to beat Koreans in bo1s or online but rarely in an offline series of any length" to "foreigners are only able to beat Koreans because bo3s are too volatile." At some point people will have to stop blaming the format or jet lag or meta changes as the main reasons why foreigners are able to beat top level Koreans. Is that surprising? The number of korean pros is significantly lower than a few years ago, a lot of top players are either retired or past their peak and there are no teamhouses anymore. The scene is just much less competitive now so obviously foreigners have a better shot at winning. Also foreigners winning bo3s isn't unheard of, even at the height of the Kespa era Snute/Scarlett/Naniwa won bo3s against top koreans. Except that the foreigners here aren't winning against aLive or Keen. They're winning against the best of the best Koreans. Sure, the overall scene is less competitive, but at the highest level, they as good or better than they were before. And yes, top foreigners can always take bo3s off of top Koreans, but do they do it all at the same time? Usually it's in one tournament where a foreigner takes off a bo3, but it's rarely that most of the foreigners in single tournament either taking bo3s off of top ten Koreans or making the series competitive. If the best of the best Koreans are playing like shit, are they really the best of the best? Sure, you can say they are only human and having an off day, but that most certainly puts an asterisk next to the foreigners beating them. TY vs Stats at Blizzcon was a clown fiesta. Nowhere close to the same league as TY vs Stats at Katowice. Form definitely varies from time to time, and Stats did look rather lost. I would be down for giving Koreans this benefit of a doubt if we also did that when foreigners underperformed or just lost. Because the thing is, regardless of whether or not the excuses are legitimate, there are so many ways we excuse the top Koreans for losing to foreigners but not the other way around. Instead, we pounce on any weakness of the foreigners to show that the gap is still there. When they lose, we call them overhyped or overrated. Or we laud the skill of the Koreans and say that they were so good, they made the foreigners look awful. Thus might be true for some people, but why don't we treat them like the Koreans and just say that they had a bad day? I'll make excuses for Neeb. He was by far the best non-Korean player this year and he was rewarded with two players whose best match up is currently ZvP and one of those is the hottest players at the moment (Rogue). I think there is a decent chance he gets out of any of the other 3 groups with Group C being the lowest chance. Elazer got to ZvZ his way into the ro8 and SpeCial had the Korean on the biggest slump (TY). Yes, SpeCial also beat recent SSL Champion which is impressive, but Neeb also won a bo3 against a recent Korean champion. If Neeb got group A instead of Snute, I have almost no doubt that he would have gotten out of the group. Neeb had a great chance of beating herO, probably loses to TY but beats Special like he has for most of the year already. Also, while you make fair points and I somewhat agree, Neeb also only had to practice for one match up but chose to neglect to practice against any of that race's aggressive/cheesy builds. He had to know that Rogue wouldn't allow him to play a macro game after losing the way he did in their first series.
Neeb really put on a great performance against Rpgue
|
I think there is a kind of serious error.
Blizzard messed up the prize pool. !
Basic algebra yields the exponential prizes adding to $700k, assuming each higher tier is worth approx. double the lower tier payout.
Exponential:
1st) $232k x1
2nd) $116k x1
3-4) $58k x2
5-8) $29k x4
9-16) $15k x8
In particular the 3rd) to 8th) place prizes on  2017 WCS Global Finals are much lower than they should fairly be. And by "fair", I mean the limit of fairness. Anything more skewed than what I wrote above is just messed up. I don't really think prizes should scale as power 2^N, but linearly. Below is a realistic look at what the $700k prize pool should be (linear, rounded):
Linear:
1st) $113 k
2nd) $90.3k
3-4) $67.7k
5-8) $45.1k
9-16) $22.6k
This would ensure that each tier level won gains you the same amount of prize.
The really bad thing is that the current WCS pool is WORSE THAN EXPONENTIAL in end-skew.
Disclaimer: I was not paid to write this post, but it may or may not represent the opinion of someone you are unlikely to disagree with less than half the time.
|
On October 31 2017 09:33 KR_4EVR wrote:I think there is a kind of serious error.Blizzard messed up the prize pool. !Basic algebra yields the exponential prizes adding to $700k, assuming each higher tier is worth approx. double the lower tier payout. Exponential:
1st) $232k x1
2nd) $116k x1
3-4) $58k x2
5-8) $29k x4
9-16) $15k x8
In particular the 3rd) to 8th) place prizes on 2017 WCS Global Finals are much lower than they should fairly be. And by "fair", I mean the limit of fairness. Anything more skewed than what I wrote above is just messed up. I don't really think prizes should scale as power 2^N, but linearly. Below is a realistic look at what the $700k prize pool should be (linear, rounded): Linear:
1st) $113 k
2nd) $90.3k
3-4) $67.7k
5-8) $45.1k
9-16) $22.6k
This would ensure that each tier level won gains you the same amount of prize. The really bad thing is that the current WCS pool is WORSE THAN EXPONENTIAL in end-skew. Disclaimer: I was not paid to write this post, but it may or may not represent the opinion of someone you are unlikely to disagree with less than half the time.
Blizzard is providing the money, so Blizzard gets to decide how said money is distributed. It's not rocket science.
If Blizzard decided that the champion gets $700k and everyone else gets nothing, then that's the way it is. If they decided the prize pool is $70k instead of $700k, then that's the way it is. If they decided the current distribution is the way it will be, as they have, then that's the way it is.
And if you disagree, feel free to spend your own money instead.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On October 31 2017 09:33 KR_4EVR wrote:I think there is a kind of serious error.Blizzard messed up the prize pool. !Basic algebra yields the exponential prizes adding to $700k, assuming each higher tier is worth approx. double the lower tier payout. Exponential:
1st) $232k x1
2nd) $116k x1
3-4) $58k x2
5-8) $29k x4
9-16) $15k x8
In particular the 3rd) to 8th) place prizes on 2017 WCS Global Finals are much lower than they should fairly be. And by "fair", I mean the limit of fairness. Anything more skewed than what I wrote above is just messed up. I don't really think prizes should scale as power 2^N, but linearly. Below is a realistic look at what the $700k prize pool should be (linear, rounded): Linear:
1st) $113 k
2nd) $90.3k
3-4) $67.7k
5-8) $45.1k
9-16) $22.6k
This would ensure that each tier level won gains you the same amount of prize. The really bad thing is that the current WCS pool is WORSE THAN EXPONENTIAL in end-skew. Disclaimer: I was not paid to write this post, but it may or may not represent the opinion of someone you are unlikely to disagree with less than half the time.
Has there ever been a tournament where the payout was perfectly exponential or linear?
|
hmmmmm how is it breaking the mold if less none koreans made it to the round of 8 then last year ? NEVER THE LESS still solid games to watch ! gumiho shouldnt be able to touch a round of 8 sOO and ty vs innovation should be a treat to watch
|
On October 31 2017 06:27 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 05:48 Fatam wrote:
Honestly one of the biggest problems is using Best of 3 series. SC2 is way too volatile for tournaments to be using bo3's to decide important matches.
(Obviously, it's understandable why they do it, there are time/money/etc. restraints. It's just unfortunate.)
Playing devil's advocate, the argument FOR bo3's might be that standard, machine-like macro players like innovation will almost always win the longer you make series, and cheekier, creative players like sOs would suffer, and that could be bad for the diversity of the game. Not to mention less upsets/wild things happening = less hype for the game. It's interesting to think about, either way. Inno tried to play super-macro, straight-up, mechanical-god style in a longer series......and Soulkey reverse-swept him. Bo7's don't favor extremely predictable players. They do favor the more skilled player overall. It's simple probability.
On October 31 2017 06:11 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 05:48 Fatam wrote:
Honestly one of the biggest problems is using Best of 3 series. SC2 is way too volatile for tournaments to be using bo3's to decide important matches.
(Obviously, it's understandable why they do it, there are time/money/etc. restraints. It's just unfortunate.)
Playing devil's advocate, the argument FOR bo3's might be that standard, machine-like macro players like innovation will almost always win the longer you make series, and cheekier, creative players like sOs would suffer, and that could be bad for the diversity of the game. Not to mention less upsets/wild things happening = less hype for the game. It's interesting to think about, either way. sOs has won plenty of bo7s. All your trying to say is that players who rely on gambling and build orders to win have a better chance in a bo3. Which isn't a good thing
I think you guys missed the part where I basically said I'm in favor of longer series. Skimming is bad, y'all. The 2nd part I was trying to provide a possible counter-point that someone might use for the sake of a balanced discussion.
|
On October 31 2017 04:26 DieuCure wrote:
Special showed really good things.
Elazer played ZvZ.
With Iem Katowice qualifiers and tournament we saw that even Jjakji is better than the best foreigner.
You are over estimating elazer's performance.
In the only macro game between him and Dark we saw an abysmal skill difference.
Man...You're so biased about Elazer. He won vs Dark with allins? So let's talk about soO vs Neeb and Rogue vs Neeb (second time). Rogue won just 1 macro game vs Neeb, in second series he won with allins/early agression both time, soO did it as well in the same manner. Is that mean that soO and Rogue are worse players than Neeb? Dude, get your shit together. Every tactic is viable, as every player has his strong and weak spots, this game is also about finding those and exploit them. Neeb's weakness was early game as he plays greedy, so soO and Rogue took advantage of it. So did Elazer. It was not a coincidence that he played as he played vs Dark.
|
On October 31 2017 17:37 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 04:26 DieuCure wrote:
Special showed really good things.
Elazer played ZvZ.
With Iem Katowice qualifiers and tournament we saw that even Jjakji is better than the best foreigner.
You are over estimating elazer's performance.
In the only macro game between him and Dark we saw an abysmal skill difference.
Man...You're so biased about Elazer. He won vs Dark with allins? So let's talk about soO vs Neeb and Rogue vs Neeb (second time). Rogue won just 1 macro game vs Neeb, in second series he won with allins/early agression both time, soO did it as well in the same manner. Is that mean that soO and Rogue are worse players than Neeb? Dude, get your shit together. Every tactic is viable, as every player has his strong and weak spots, this game is also about finding those and exploit them. Neeb's weakness was early game as he plays greedy, so soO and Rogue took advantage of it. So did Elazer. It was not a coincidence that he played as he played vs Dark.
The argument is pretty obvious, ZvP is much less coinflippy than ZvZ in terms of allins. Elazer went for a gamble and it worked. Direct opposite of what hhappened against TY last year.
soO and Rogue are better players than Neeb anyway, Elazer is years behind Dark in terms of skill. Dark isn't weak early game like Neeb, that's just how ZvZ works
|
This was the most fun I had watching a Blizzcon Ro16. Not a single disappointing series. Looking forward to Ro8 and onwards!
|
I agree, remember last year when violet threw a series losing on JinAir's 2-1-1...
|
i think special has a chance
|
I think being able to say a foreigner got to ro4 will be neat, but i would have preferred them to play other koreans. Oh well, it will still be good,
I expect Special to take out Elazer in that match.
Rogue over hero
Innovation over TY
soO over gumiho
then rogue takes out innovation, and faces soO in a zvz final. oh god i dont want to say it but soO wins it all!!
I can't wait to watch the matches, I have to work all blizzcon weekend but I plan to stay up late to watch the vods and stay off TL and twitter
|
On October 31 2017 20:29 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 17:37 hiroshOne wrote:On October 31 2017 04:26 DieuCure wrote:
Special showed really good things.
Elazer played ZvZ.
With Iem Katowice qualifiers and tournament we saw that even Jjakji is better than the best foreigner.
You are over estimating elazer's performance.
In the only macro game between him and Dark we saw an abysmal skill difference.
Man...You're so biased about Elazer. He won vs Dark with allins? So let's talk about soO vs Neeb and Rogue vs Neeb (second time). Rogue won just 1 macro game vs Neeb, in second series he won with allins/early agression both time, soO did it as well in the same manner. Is that mean that soO and Rogue are worse players than Neeb? Dude, get your shit together. Every tactic is viable, as every player has his strong and weak spots, this game is also about finding those and exploit them. Neeb's weakness was early game as he plays greedy, so soO and Rogue took advantage of it. So did Elazer. It was not a coincidence that he played as he played vs Dark. The argument is pretty obvious, ZvP is much less coinflippy than ZvZ in terms of allins. Elazer went for a gamble and it worked. Direct opposite of what hhappened against TY last year. soO and Rogue are better players than Neeb anyway, Elazer is years behind Dark in terms of skill. Dark isn't weak early game like Neeb, that's just how ZvZ works
To be fair Elazer was years in front of dark in terms of skill in these games. I wouldn't go so far to say that Dark made "uncharacteristic" mistakes, but there were mistakes which occur on bad days. And the way and frequency of the mistakes cost Dark the games. Elazer got lucky a few times with banes not catching on units, but that's also part of the game.
All in all I also do think that Dark > Elazer, but in that series Elazer definitely deserved the win because he simply played way better.
Edit: and thus he deserves his Ro8 spot over Dark.
|
On November 01 2017 05:58 DSh1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 20:29 Fango wrote:On October 31 2017 17:37 hiroshOne wrote:On October 31 2017 04:26 DieuCure wrote:
Special showed really good things.
Elazer played ZvZ.
With Iem Katowice qualifiers and tournament we saw that even Jjakji is better than the best foreigner.
You are over estimating elazer's performance.
In the only macro game between him and Dark we saw an abysmal skill difference.
Man...You're so biased about Elazer. He won vs Dark with allins? So let's talk about soO vs Neeb and Rogue vs Neeb (second time). Rogue won just 1 macro game vs Neeb, in second series he won with allins/early agression both time, soO did it as well in the same manner. Is that mean that soO and Rogue are worse players than Neeb? Dude, get your shit together. Every tactic is viable, as every player has his strong and weak spots, this game is also about finding those and exploit them. Neeb's weakness was early game as he plays greedy, so soO and Rogue took advantage of it. So did Elazer. It was not a coincidence that he played as he played vs Dark. The argument is pretty obvious, ZvP is much less coinflippy than ZvZ in terms of allins. Elazer went for a gamble and it worked. Direct opposite of what hhappened against TY last year. soO and Rogue are better players than Neeb anyway, Elazer is years behind Dark in terms of skill. Dark isn't weak early game like Neeb, that's just how ZvZ works To be fair Elazer was years in front of dark in terms of skill in these games. I wouldn't go so far to say that Dark made "uncharacteristic" mistakes, but there were mistakes which occur on bad days. And the way and frequency of the mistakes cost Dark the games. Elazer got lucky a few times with banes not catching on units, but that's also part of the game. All in all I also do think that Dark > Elazer, but in that series Elazer definitely deserved the win because he simply played way better. Edit: and thus he deserves his Ro8 spot over Dark.
Elazer wasn't years ahead of Dark though. He won one game with quick muta that went unscouted, and the other game with an allin that Dark didn't realise (Dark thought Elazer would drone up after he held the allin, and took the risk of getting more drones, Elazer however went more allin). The one macro game was a stomp by Dark.
Imagine if Elazer beat TY when he allined him twice in a row last year, could have easily happened if TY chose different builds. Except results due to gambles like that weren't determined by him playing well, but the opponent having the counter or not. Now ZvT isn't as volatile as ZvZ (you can have close to a 100% winrate in TvZ, that would be almost impossible in ZvZ) but still
Do people think that when Kelazur proxy-raxed TY twice in a row and won 2-0 that he was years ahead of him? The reason he went for the coinflip was litterally becasue he knew he was against a better player.
|
On November 01 2017 07:14 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 05:58 DSh1 wrote:On October 31 2017 20:29 Fango wrote:On October 31 2017 17:37 hiroshOne wrote:On October 31 2017 04:26 DieuCure wrote:
Special showed really good things.
Elazer played ZvZ.
With Iem Katowice qualifiers and tournament we saw that even Jjakji is better than the best foreigner.
You are over estimating elazer's performance.
In the only macro game between him and Dark we saw an abysmal skill difference.
Man...You're so biased about Elazer. He won vs Dark with allins? So let's talk about soO vs Neeb and Rogue vs Neeb (second time). Rogue won just 1 macro game vs Neeb, in second series he won with allins/early agression both time, soO did it as well in the same manner. Is that mean that soO and Rogue are worse players than Neeb? Dude, get your shit together. Every tactic is viable, as every player has his strong and weak spots, this game is also about finding those and exploit them. Neeb's weakness was early game as he plays greedy, so soO and Rogue took advantage of it. So did Elazer. It was not a coincidence that he played as he played vs Dark. The argument is pretty obvious, ZvP is much less coinflippy than ZvZ in terms of allins. Elazer went for a gamble and it worked. Direct opposite of what hhappened against TY last year. soO and Rogue are better players than Neeb anyway, Elazer is years behind Dark in terms of skill. Dark isn't weak early game like Neeb, that's just how ZvZ works To be fair Elazer was years in front of dark in terms of skill in these games. I wouldn't go so far to say that Dark made "uncharacteristic" mistakes, but there were mistakes which occur on bad days. And the way and frequency of the mistakes cost Dark the games. Elazer got lucky a few times with banes not catching on units, but that's also part of the game. All in all I also do think that Dark > Elazer, but in that series Elazer definitely deserved the win because he simply played way better. Edit: and thus he deserves his Ro8 spot over Dark. Elazer wasn't years ahead of Dark though. He won one game with quick muta that went unscouted, and the other game with an allin that Dark didn't realise (Dark thought Elazer would drone up after he held the allin, and took the risk of getting more drones, Elazer however went more allin). The one macro game was a stomp by Dark. Imagine if Elazer beat TY when he allined him twice in a row last year, could have easily happened if TY chose different builds. Except results due to gambles like that weren't determined by him playing well, but the opponent having the counter or not. Now ZvT isn't as volatile as ZvZ (you can have close to a 100% winrate in TvZ, that would be almost impossible in ZvZ) but still Do people think that when Kelazur proxy-raxed TY twice in a row and won 2-0 that he was years ahead of him? The reason he went for the coinflip was litterally becasue he knew he was against a better player.
I also don't think Elazer was years ahead of Dark. (What does that even mean?) That was my SUBTLE hint, that Elazer is not years behind of Dark in terms of skill like CERTAIN people claimed.
I agree that Elazer might not have player insanely out of his mind. But most of the times the one with fewer mistakes wins, not the one who does the big plays. And that is what happened. Thus indeed Elazer played better than Dark.
It is of course insanely difficult to not make any mistakes, but it is a deciding factor at this level and on good days you don't see Dark doing these mistakes.
First of all it is a huge blunder that he didn't scout the 3rd base. That's entirely on him. You don't see third base and don't manage to check the other alternative location? It was not like Elazer had hidden his base somewhere far away or so.
Secondly, in the second game he loses 3 overlords. Which is a blunder, but okayish, since he is under pressure. Losing 2 more overlords after is clearly on Dark (not saying it's easy, but that's certainly something to criticize).
My point is more that Elazer was clearly the better more deserving winner. Whether that is because he played godly or Dark played (relatively) poorly can be debated. I tend to think Dark played comparatively bad. And if Dark plays like that, I could see how Elazer might be years ahead if you rate only that series. (Remember Elazer did not commit such mistakes as far as I could tell.)
A simplified rule of thumb:
impressive plays (Dark) < no mistakes (Elazer) < no mistakes + impressive play
It means no amount of godly play will help you, if you make crucial mistakes which there are a lot in SC2.
Edit: there were a few more questionable moves by dark as well. Mainly letting his army get hit by biles as far as I could tell. Don't remember too detailed, but these should be the most obvious mistakes. My general impression was, that he did not play up to his full potential.
|
On October 31 2017 17:37 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 04:26 DieuCure wrote:
Special showed really good things.
Elazer played ZvZ.
With Iem Katowice qualifiers and tournament we saw that even Jjakji is better than the best foreigner.
You are over estimating elazer's performance.
In the only macro game between him and Dark we saw an abysmal skill difference.
Man...You're so biased about Elazer. He won vs Dark with allins? So let's talk about soO vs Neeb and Rogue vs Neeb (second time). Rogue won just 1 macro game vs Neeb, in second series he won with allins/early agression both time, soO did it as well in the same manner. Is that mean that soO and Rogue are worse players than Neeb? Dude, get your shit together. Every tactic is viable, as every player has his strong and weak spots, this game is also about finding those and exploit them. Neeb's weakness was early game as he plays greedy, so soO and Rogue took advantage of it. So did Elazer. It was not a coincidence that he played as he played vs Dark.
pretty much 100% what you said.
Just, why must TL people always try to put down wins that foreigners get. Making so many excuses like "oh _____ was just playing bad" and "oh it's just ZvZ" or "he just cheesed". Well back when innovation was TvT proxy reapering or byun was proxy reapering these people weren't saying "he just cheesed".
We get it, Koreans are usually better, but when a foreigner wins and the some people like to "celebrate", you don't need to get your head up your ass because other people are happy.
|
The only macro game was a complete stomp between a 7k mmr and a 6k3
|
That was no macro game, that was a timing attack with I think Dark coming out ahead from the early game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
