With four players already eliminated, the remaining twelve gathered for a marathon day featuring no fewer than eight Bo3 series, to determine who would make it to BlizzCon proper in five day’s time.
TY and SpeCial both opened with reactored hellions and ravens on Odyssey, but SpeCial deviated with a pair of cyclones while TY went for tanks. SpeCial pushed out, killing seven SCVs after diving on TY’s tank with his raven. Both players established themselves on three bases, but SpeCial had a far larger army having dealt early damage and sniped a full medivac. A drop in TY's main drew his army into his main, rendering him unable to prevent SpeCial from rolling through his third and taking the first game.
TY's reaper delayed SpeCial's natural on Ascension to Aiur, but SpeCial deflected TY's early hellions before seamlessly macroing into mech. TY was forced to lift his third base and retreat to as SpeCial's tanks set up a siege on his natural. A pair of liberators forced threatening TY’s tanks forced TY into action and, though he managed to kill the liberators, he didn't have enough to clean up the rest of SpeCial's forces. Down more than 60 supply, TY tapped out, setting up a win or go home match against Stats, while also making SpeCial the first quarterfinalist.
Neeb opened with a stargate and two gateways after an expand while soO took his standard 32 supply third base on Odyssey. Still on two bases, Neeb attacked with adepts oracles. He was took a worker lead, but soO quickly changed gears, going into a nydus worm. Zerglings took down Neeb’s third unopposed as the nydus ferried the queens and roaches into Neeb's main. They were met by adepts, oracles and pylon overcharges, but it wasn’t enough. Neeb never had time to catch his breath as endless units overran the TING Protoss, giving soO the 1-0 lead.
Neeb led off with a robo/dark shrine on Ascension to Aiur, but soO's overlord scouted gave him forewarning to build spores and a roach warren. Neeb still able caught soO off guard with four dark templars at his third, but soO retreated before charging back as if he had overseer despite his lair not being completed, forcing Neeb to retreat. Neeb tried to keep soO honest with his warp prism, but soO repeatedly canceled Neeb's third with zerglings before moving out with hydralisks. Neeb was caught out of position and, while immortals did their best, it was simply a numbers game. soO smashed through Neeb’s defenses, sending him to BlizzCon while setting up a rematch between Rogue and Neeb.
Having seen a void ray, Dark canceled overlord speed on Ascension to Aiur, allowing herO's twilight council and charge to go to undetected. herO tried to take a third base, but zerglings, banelings and queens killed the expansion. herO looked to be in dire straits after losing his main mineral line to banelings drops, but a desperate attack with archons and immortals put Dark in a similar spot. herO backed off and took a third base while eliminating Dark’s fourth. Stuck on roach tech, Dark's army was overwhelmed by herO's more formidable army, putting him down a game.
Having reached three bases Dark went for a roach warren while herO opted for charge, a robotics facility and templar archives before taking a third while setting up a timing attack. Dark held the first wave with roaches and even counterattacked with banelings, but the effort fizzled. A zergling run by into herO's third drew the ROOT Protoss back, but he paid a pair of banelings no mind as he plowed into Dark's third, killing the base and then Dark's army. The win earned herO a quarterfinal berth while pitting Dark against Elazer in a do or die final match.
GuMiho's 2/1/1 was a break from the TvT norm, while INnoVation went for a more standard 1/1/1 opening on Ascension to Aiur. GuMiho took a quicker third and appeared to be controlling the pace after sieging INnoVation's third while killing workers at the Ballistix Terran's fourth, but INnoVation managed to sneak past and snipe GuMiho's fourth. Things snowballed from there with INnoVation driving GuMiho back and eventually picking up the game mid-map as his superior bio/tank force forced GuMiho into an unwinnable fight.
The early game played out similarly on Odyssey, but GuMiho favored tanks while INnoVation made a trio of cyclones. The first real action was botched three medivac drop from GuMiho gave INnoVation a 20 supply lead. He built on it by sniping GuMiho's third while taking one of his own. GuMiho was always on the back foot from there, unable to get his footing economically, while losing air control. He tried to find good fights, but that too was futile as INNoVation closed out the series 2-0 to move on to BlizzCon. The loss set up a rematch between Serral and GuMiho.
Game one took place on Ascension to Aiur. Stalkers and stargate set up a contina, but TY eventually broke out and claimed his third. Stats shaded into TY's third and natural and killed 16 workers at the cost of all the adepts. Instead of countering en masse, TY split his army. Stats survived mostly intact, the primary casualty being the robotics bay researching colossus range. Stats moved out and in an ambitious move sniped TY's fourth. He lost nearly all of his army in the process, though. TY increase his liberator and ghost count before dealing the killing blow.
TY significantly delayed Stats' expansions with a proxy barracks and engineering bay, but Stats was eventually able to take the gold base on Odyssey. TY killed probes left and right with cloaked banshees, but was stuck on two bases and struggled to transition to bio. Stats went into glaives and a host of adepts, shading into TY's third before TY could muster the forces to defend it. Marines and tanks fell in droves, sending the series to game three.
Stats looked poised to take the series on Interloper after TY's failed double medivac drop set up a blink push that killed fourteen SCVs while pinning TY on 2 base. Stats took a third, reloaded and moved out. TY had the same idea however, and a basetrade ensued. Both players took heavy losses, with TY landing a command center a stones throwing from Stats' building nexus. With every thing on the line, bio/tank mashed against stalkers and immortals. But it was TY who emerged from the scrum, leaving Stats no choice but to concede. The loss brings his BlizzCon to an end, while securing TY a spot in the Round of 8.
The rematch between Rogue and Neeb began on Abyssal Reef. Neeb opened with an oracle and fast third before adding on another two stargates. Rogue gave the American’s build no time to develop as he went for a ling flood and queen drop that killed 41 probes, bringing a swift end to the game.
Game two took place on Acolyte, but Rogue showed no interest in protracted macro game, going for swarm hosts and a nydus worm off two bases. Neeb expanded up to three bases, but was unable to tech beyond gateway units and oracles as locusts killed buildings, workers and army units. Neeb tried to strike back with adepts and oracles, but Rogue was prepared with roaches and queens. Down more than 70 supply and facing off against 24 swarm hosts and a murder of corruptors, Neeb left the game, sending Rogue to BlizzCon while bringing an end to a Neeb's historic WCS campaign.
Dark and Elazer opened hatchery first on Mech Depot, but Dark went for a quicker baneling nest while Elazer took a third at an unusual spot just north of his seven o'clock base before getting his lair. Dark declined to commit to aggression, instead teching up to roaches. Elazer committed to zerglings, however. With his spire in production, he killed off queens, roaches and drones. Elazer's mutalisks arrive not long after, prompting a quick concession from a defenseless Dark.
Dark and Elazer found their way up to three bases on Abyssal Reef and moved into roaches after fighting to a draw with zerglings and banelings. Dark made a spire, but it wasn’t detected until his mutalisks cleaned up a roach drop. This triggered Elazer to go into hydralisks which Dark responded to by researching banelings speed. He massed banelings and roaches before crashing into Elazer's fourth. Corrosive biles waylaid the banelings, but they found the necessary connections to swing the roach count in Dark's favor and even the series.
Ascension to Aiur was the site of game three. Dark took a worker lead following the standard three base ling/bane exchange, but Elazer held an army advantage. When his counterattack reached Dark, the Korean Zerg commanded a sizeable roach force. Elazer's first push got him nowhere, but he kept adding on roaches and zerglings while chipping away at Dark's army. Roaches and ravagers broke through and Elazer chased Dark into his natural. Dark pulled his drones in defense, but Elazer's numbers proved insurmountable. Dark tapped out, ending the chances of back to back finals, while making Elazer the second foreigner to reach the final eight.
Serral opened the series with a proxy hatchery on Ascension to Aiur. Accosted by ravagers and queens, GuMiho was forced to lift his natural and factory. He eventually broke out with bio/tank after doing minor damage with cloaked banshees, but Serral was already building an army off three bases. GuMiho tried to swing things in his favor, but Serral simply had too much muscle. His army met its doom at the claws of roaches and ravagers, giving Serral a 1-0 advantage.
Serral macroed up to three bases on Acolyte, but made it no further as GuMiho managed to fly three medivacs full of tanks and marines into Serral's pocket expansion. Serral lost five drones before the fight even began. Serral bought a flood of zerglings and a number of queens to bear, but the tanks and a few marines survived. Facing a mech transition down 20 supply, Serral conceded bringing the series to a third game.
Game three on Abyssal Reef started with a marine/mine drop and hellion aggression from GuMiho. Serral weathered it with minimal losses, but suffered significant damage from auto turrets while teching into hydra/ling/bane. The players traded blows while teching to ranged liberators and ultralisk/viper respectively. The game seesawed back and forth, but GuMiho was denying bases and mining while Serral kept attacking into liberators, each time emerging with less than he began. Down nearly 100 supply, Serral left the game, bringing his year to a close while making GuMiho the sixth Korean to advance to BlizzCon.
With the group stage complete, all that was left was for the BlizzCon bracket to be drawn, and just like last year, we open up with a foreigner vs foreigner knife fight to start proceedings. Join us on Friday 3 November as SpeCial and Elazer kick off the WCS Global Finals Playoffs.
Honestly when I see how the quarter finals looks like I can boldly imagine that soO can make some unexpected shock and triumph for the grand finals. Fan favorites are definitely placed in the down bracket and may be this could be really shocking for most expectations. Anyway, TY fighting, buuut... soO could surprise us all and finally breaks the curse :D
On October 30 2017 09:57 Veluvian wrote: Honestly when I see how the quarter finals looks like I can boldly imagine that soO can make some unexpected shock and triumph for the grand finals. Fan favorites are definitely placed in the down bracket and may be this could be really shocking for most expectations. Anyway, TY fighting, buuut... soO could surprise us all and finally breaks the curse :D
If this happens, then god is real and he really moved heaven and earth to make soO finally win!
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual. herO vs Rogue, again? Innovation vs TY, AGAIN? soO vs Gumiho, AGAAAAIN? and Elazer vs Major, meh.
I honestly don't know how you could call Neeb overrated here... Rogue is considered the best zerg in the world... And soO outside of a finals?
But honestly... when Neeb lost G1 vs soO he looked mentally shaken. Like he was shaking himself and very visibly disturbed. His mindset seemed more or less broken after that (taking the bluff in G2, and losing pretty easy games against Rogue in the rematch.)
I don't say this to make excuses for Neeb. He played good to start and fell to aggression that he had to know was a very good possibility. But it was clearly a headcase thing that was really depressing to see.
Major played a masterclass. He owned his group start to finish and damn that hardwork and preparation showed. I feel bad for TY if Innovation has been practicing with Major! [THAT'S RIGHT PEOPLE WE GET TO MAKE THAT SORT OF COMMENT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE!!!!!].
NOTE: I say easy in the sense that if you follow the scene you have seen Rogue pull out those strats before in BTTV cups, and Neeb is plenty capable of defending it on other days.
Really want the winner of soO v Gumiho to win the whole thing. But it feels like a long shot... Too bad all 4 players I'm rooting for are all in top bracket haha
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual. herO vs Rogue, again? Innovation vs TY, AGAIN? soO vs Gumiho, AGAAAAIN? and Elazer vs Major, meh.
I honestly don't know how you could call Neeb overrated here... Rogue is considered the best zerg in the world... And soO outside of a finals?
But honestly... when Neeb lost G1 vs soO he looked mentally shaken. Like he was shaking himself and very visibly disturbed. His mindset seemed more or less broken after that (taking the bluff in G2, and losing pretty easy games against Rogue in the rematch.)
I don't say this to make excuses for Neeb. He played good to start and fell to aggression that he had to know was a very good possibility. But it was clearly a headcase thing that was really depressing to see.
Major played a masterclass. He owned his group start to finish and damn that hardwork and preparation showed. I feel bad for TY if Innovation has been practicing with Major! [THAT'S RIGHT PEOPLE WE GET TO MAKE THAT SORT OF COMMENT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE!!!!!].
NOTE: I say easy in the sense that if you follow the scene you have seen Rogue pull out those strats before in BTTV cups, and Neeb is plenty capable of defending it on other days.
EDIT2: Protoss clearly OP. Clearly.
Yeah, not to excuse Neeb of making those mistakes, but he looked quite unsure of himself in those other three games.
It reminded me a lot of when he played versus Dark last year. He just wasn't able to play to his full potential.
Especially in his games to Rogue in the previous series, he played with a lot less confidence in the final series.
But, it was really exciting to see Special do well against a top Terran and Protoss. Also, seeing Elazer get his revenge was really cool as well.
It's a big shame that Neeb looked so shaken and vulnerable to aggression. He looked so good on Friday, but I suppose his nerves can still get to him when playing some of the best in the world.
Now at least I won't have to feel conflicted anymore, soO all the way! It's time to prove to everyone he is the GOAT zerg.
Should be interesting to see if major can continue his strong form in a third matchup (TvZ). On one hand, it sucks that we have a "team kill" for foreigners, but on the other hand, we have a guaranteed foreigner in the ro4.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
Concluding the ro16, how did I know that it was foreigner vs foreigner in the quarterfinals. I am hoping to see an Innovation vs soO (maybe elazer) finals.
Cheering for soO and Rogue, that Elazer vs Major is a brutal matchup though would have been more fun if they would have been spread out. Hoping soO crushes that part of the bracket but if he doesn't I hope Special takes it!
Sad that Neeb crumbled, I guess he underestimated soO then lost his head would have liked to see Serral make it through but couldn't quite do it. Special has impressed me most so far out of the foreigners so I hope he makes it far.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
I don't doubt that that was part of it. Of course, the foreigners have to be good enough in part, but it has the potential for the foreigner to have to win more games than a bo5 or to just have to win two games over a foreigner and then upset a Korean for the other two.
as an Inno's fan, this is a really sad bracket draw for me, if Gumiho gets to the final, we could have a TvT finals that nobody wants, but if Soo gets there, he will become runner-up again, which is also sad.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
It's not that bo3 favors foreigners imo but it definitely encourages sniper strats and puts solid style players at a disadvantage.
This might lead to some less epic ro8 because I am sure we would end up with a slightly different lineup if ro16 was bo5 instead.
Still I'm very happy that soO advanced and I'm gonna send him all my energy because him winning it all would be one of the most beautiful stories in sc2 history. If not him than let it be INno, let's give him that GOAT finally and move on with life, mkay?
Really hope to see soO take it all and break the curse in the best tournament possible to do it once and for all.
Elazer would be great too, obviously.
Inno I'd still be very happy too because SC2 needs a new bonjwa.
I really love how Special admitted he took his TvT build against TY from a low MMR player; it's a nice tribute to all the players out there who are able to envision excellent builds but are not able to perform them to their fullest potential due to mechanical flaws that naturally come with not practicing as much as pros. He got lucky to find it and yet admits it and does not take undue credit for it. Gogo Juanito!
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
I fail to see why people keep making excuses for Stats and TY and Dark. The results speak for themselves. They lost.
At the same time, I fail to see why people claim this means the gap has closed. Stats and TY played like complete shit, Dark played decently but still nowhere near his full potential. Anyone who has watched them in top form can easily tell that the "top Koreans" were far from "top Korean level" when they lost to the foreigners.
Stats, TY, and Dark have only themselves to blame. Yes, they lost. No, the foreigners are not at the level of top Koreans.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
Yeah, what an excuse. Elazer cheeses two times, wins two times. Never had a chance in game 2. ZvZ is fucked up
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
Of course they are able to beat top koreans. It just becomes more and more unlikely the longer the boX
Foreigners at this point are basically just GSL ro32 players. In a bo3 scenario of course GSL ro32 players could beat a top player with enough attempts. Guys like Gumiho and Rogue have already lost in the ro32 this year
However in a longer series the difference would become obvious
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
On October 30 2017 10:24 engesser1 wrote: Overrated Neeb and underrated Major, as usual.
Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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?
On October 31 2017 04:56 Majick wrote: Don't you guys find it sad that most of us agree that ZvZs don't count? It shouldn't be like that in a competitive game.
I mean, what could be done to change it? There don't seem to be any changes coming in this area...
Would reducing Baneling damage vs other Zerg units so that they don't one shot lings change anything here?
On October 30 2017 14:12 Boggyb wrote: [quote] Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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?
Because the Koreans tend to win, and the foreigners tend to lose. Certainly there are any number of reasons why individual players lose individual games/series, but when one group of people regularly and consistently demonstrates a higher level of skill than another group of people then it is safe to conclude that the first group is in all likelihood more skilled than the second. Therefore, people expect a particular outcome when the two groups clash. And when the expected outcome is not the actual outcome, excuses are required to explain why this discrepancy exists.
Take for instance Scarlett and INnoVation. In the Ro32 of GSL Season 3, Scarlett played INnoVation in a starting match of Group B. Scarlett won the first game and came extremely close to winning the second, but eventually lost the series 1-2. She was later knocked out in the loser's match by Hurricane. Inno, as we all know, went on to later win that entire season of GSL.
An unbiased observer of that single Bo3, with no prior knowledge of Scarlett or INnoVation, would most likely come to the conclusion that the two players were relatively close in terms of skill. The fact that one player is currently under consideration for GOAT status while the other is.....not, would seem to contradict that conclusion–a perfectly reasonable conclusion from the sample size of a single Bo3.
Now, extrapolating this case study to demonstrated-championship-level players like Stats, TY, and Dark......
Point being that a single series, on a single day, is a terrible measurement of any player's overall skill level. And the overall skill levels say that the top Koreans still outclass the top foreigners by a considerable margin (possible exception for Neeb). Hence why people make excuses for Koreans playing below expectations instead of the other way around.
On October 31 2017 04:56 Majick wrote: Don't you guys find it sad that most of us agree that ZvZs don't count? It shouldn't be like that in a competitive game.
I mean, what could be done to change it? There don't seem to be any changes coming in this area...
Would reducing Baneling damage vs other Zerg units so that they don't one shot lings change anything here?
It's all about zerg design. Not a specific unit.
So we just have to accept this state of things? Is there no hope?
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.
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?
Because the Koreans tend to win, and the foreigners tend to lose. Certainly there are any number of reasons why individual players lose individual games/series, but when one group of people regularly and consistently demonstrates a higher level of skill than another group of people then it is safe to conclude that the first group is in all likelihood more skilled than the second. Therefore, people expect a particular outcome when the two groups clash. And when the expected outcome is not the actual outcome, excuses are required to explain why this discrepancy exists.
Take for instance Scarlett and INnoVation. In the Ro32 of GSL Season 3, Scarlett played INnoVation in a starting match of Group B. Scarlett won the first game and came extremely close to winning the second, but eventually lost the series 1-2. She was later knocked out in the loser's match by Hurricane. Inno, as we all know, went on to later win that entire season of GSL.
An unbiased observer of that single Bo3, with no prior knowledge of Scarlett or INnoVation, would most likely come to the conclusion that the two players were relatively close in terms of skill. The fact that one player is currently under consideration for GOAT status while the other is.....not, would seem to contradict that conclusion–a perfectly reasonable conclusion from the sample size of a single Bo3.
Now, extrapolating this case study to demonstrated-championship-level players like Stats, TY, and Dark......
Point being that a single series, on a single day, is a terrible measurement of any player's overall skill level. And the overall skill levels say that the top Koreans still outclass the top foreigners by a considerable margin (possible exception for Neeb). Hence why people make excuses for Koreans playing below expectations instead of the other way around.
1000% this.
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.
A world where INnoVation would win anything would be perfect.
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
On October 30 2017 14:12 Boggyb wrote: [quote] Neeb wasn't overrated. He was by far the best non-Korean in the world and proved that by winning literally 3/4ths of the WCS Circuit events.
SpeCial wasn't underrated unless you think it makes sense that he fails to make it to the playoffs of the last WCS circuit event but then makes the ro8 at WCS Global finals.
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.
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.
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 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
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):
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.
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):
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.
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):
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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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.
On November 01 2017 19:37 DieuCure wrote: The only macro game was a complete stomp between a 7k mmr and a 6k3
Cheeses, allins and timing attacks are perfectly legit strats. Elazer was a better player that Dark in this bo3, deal with it.
They are perfectly legit strats but winning with them doesn't inherently mean someone is a better player. There is too much of a rock-paper-scissors in build wins to make the determination from a best of 3 unless the player is super mind gaming or playing their opponent. (e.g. Serral's map win in the decider match was targeting GuMiho's tendencies.)
Elazer pulled his A game. Dark pulled his C game. Elazer won. That doesn't mean Dark is the worst player overall. He would probably be ahead of Elazer ladder wise, in longer series, on most days of the week and maybe in a different place than California (not every1 deals with specific jet lags the same). But that certainly does not mean that Dark can be miles ahead of Elazer even overall. A 7K mmr player on his C game can lose a Bo3 to a 6.4K mmr on his A game, but much less likely to a 5.4K mmr player, even if that player is playing his absolute best.
The luck factor can usually be compensated by the better player investing slightly more in scouting, this being true except for the initial 1 minute of the game (before any unit can make it's way across the map) . Thus "cheese" or "all in" victories isn't an excuse for Dark to lose the series (esp. Here since we're not talking about 12 pool strat). Not scouting during a plausible window for muta switch was in itself a gamble too on Dark's side, not only Elazer's.
On November 01 2017 19:37 DieuCure wrote: The only macro game was a complete stomp between a 7k mmr and a 6k3
Cheeses, allins and timing attacks are perfectly legit strats. Elazer was a better player that Dark in this bo3, deal with it.
Why wasnt he the better player in game 2? I think Dark was ahead ~30 supply while building a spire. And the winning player is better? I think Rifkin and Zombiegrub won against Ryung and Crank in a legit Archon Match. Are they the better player?
On November 01 2017 19:37 DieuCure wrote: The only macro game was a complete stomp between a 7k mmr and a 6k3
Cheeses, allins and timing attacks are perfectly legit strats. Elazer was a better player that Dark in this bo3, deal with it.
Why wasnt he the better player in game 2? I think Dark was ahead ~30 supply while building a spire. And the winning player is better? I think Rifkin and Zombiegrub won against Ryung and Crank in a legit Archon Match. Are they the better player?
wtf are you talking about? Did Rifkin and Zombiegrub win against Ryung and Crank in a WCS Global Finals match? This comparison is nonsence
On November 01 2017 19:37 DieuCure wrote: The only macro game was a complete stomp between a 7k mmr and a 6k3
Cheeses, allins and timing attacks are perfectly legit strats. Elazer was a better player that Dark in this bo3, deal with it.
Why wasnt he the better player in game 2? I think Dark was ahead ~30 supply while building a spire. And the winning player is better? I think Rifkin and Zombiegrub won against Ryung and Crank in a legit Archon Match. Are they the better player?
wtf are you talking about? Rifkin and Zombiegrub won against Ryung and Crank in a WCS Global Finals match? This comparison is nonsence
What? Because its not a Blizzcon match it doesnt have any relevance?
On November 01 2017 20:20 Gurbak wrote: Hide nested quote - On November 01 2017 19:37 DieuCure wrote: The only macro game was a complete stomp between a 7k mmr and a 6k3
Cheeses, allins and timing attacks are perfectly legit strats. Elazer was a better player that Dark in this bo3, deal with it.
Why wasnt he the better player in game 2? I think Dark was ahead ~30 supply while building a spire. And the winning player is better? I think Rifkin and Zombiegrub won against Ryung and Crank in a legit Archon Match. Are they the better player?
When Dark cheesed his wins against foreigners so many times - it was skill. When Elazer wins with mind games it means nothing, he is the inferior player. lol. Remember they played for over a month on korean ladder, hundreds of games and the results for Korean zergs were abysmal. Elazer is not only much better than Dark in zvz he is better than any korean zerg in zvz, the longer the series the less chance a Korean has. Same with ZvP. Dark has better ZvT, does it absolutely mean he is a better player? By the way, when Dark reached the finals last year he only won 1 game against a Korean also 2:1.
On November 01 2017 20:20 Gurbak wrote: Hide nested quote - On November 01 2017 19:37 DieuCure wrote: The only macro game was a complete stomp between a 7k mmr and a 6k3
Cheeses, allins and timing attacks are perfectly legit strats. Elazer was a better player that Dark in this bo3, deal with it.
Why wasnt he the better player in game 2? I think Dark was ahead ~30 supply while building a spire. And the winning player is better? I think Rifkin and Zombiegrub won against Ryung and Crank in a legit Archon Match. Are they the better player?
When Dark cheesed his wins against foreigners so many times - it was skill. When Elazer wins with mind games it means nothing, he is the inferior player. lol. Remember they played for over a month on korean ladder, hundreds of games and the results for Korean zergs were abysmal. Elazer is not only much better than Dark in zvz he is better than any korean zerg in zvz, the longer the series the less chance a Korean has. Same with ZvP. Dark has better ZvT, does it absolutely mean he is a better player? By the way, when Dark reached the finals last year he only won 1 game against a Korean also 2:1.
On November 01 2017 20:20 Gurbak wrote: Hide nested quote - On November 01 2017 19:37 DieuCure wrote: The only macro game was a complete stomp between a 7k mmr and a 6k3
Cheeses, allins and timing attacks are perfectly legit strats. Elazer was a better player that Dark in this bo3, deal with it.
Why wasnt he the better player in game 2? I think Dark was ahead ~30 supply while building a spire. And the winning player is better? I think Rifkin and Zombiegrub won against Ryung and Crank in a legit Archon Match. Are they the better player?
When Dark cheesed his wins against foreigners so many times - it was skill. When Elazer wins with mind games it means nothing, he is the inferior player. lol. Remember they played for over a month on korean ladder, hundreds of games and the results for Korean zergs were abysmal. Elazer is not only much better than Dark in zvz he is better than any korean zerg in zvz, the longer the series the less chance a Korean has. Same with ZvP. Dark has better ZvT, does it absolutely mean he is a better player? By the way, when Dark reached the finals last year he only won 1 game against a Korean also 2:1.
Wait, are you seriously claiming that Elazer > Dark? As in, Elazer is the superior player overall, across all matchups, and capable of achieving everything Dark has and more? That Elazer is quite possibly the best Zerg in the world? Is that what you are saying?
Wait, are you seriously claiming that Elazer > Dark? As in, Elazer is the superior player overall, across all matchups, and capable of achieving everything Dark has and more? That Elazer is quite possibly the best Zerg in the world? Is that what you are saying?
Please tell me I have misunderstood.
I didn't say he is better across all matchups. I said he is better in zvz and at least as good in ZvP and inferior in zvt.
So why didnt he won game 2?
Are you serious? Even if he has a 75% win rate against best koreans in zvz he will lose games.
Wait, are you seriously claiming that Elazer > Dark? As in, Elazer is the superior player overall, across all matchups, and capable of achieving everything Dark has and more? That Elazer is quite possibly the best Zerg in the world? Is that what you are saying?
Please tell me I have misunderstood.
I didn't say he is better across all matchups. I said he is better in zvz and at least as good in ZvP and inferior in zvt.
Are you serious? Even if he has a 75% win rate against best koreans in zvz he will lose games.
There is absolutely no way that he'd come close to matching Dark's SSL run. Having to play 3 players of the same race in a best of 7 and only fall to the player with the highest amount of WCS Korea points in the final game is absolutely insane.
There is absolutely no way that he'd come close to matching Dark's SSL run. Having to play 3 players of the same race in a best of 7 and only fall to the player with the highest amount of WCS Korea points in the final game is absolutely insane.
There is no chance that Stats would win against Elazer in a best of 7, just as it would be impossible for herO to beat Elazer in a best of 7.
Wait, are you seriously claiming that Elazer > Dark? As in, Elazer is the superior player overall, across all matchups, and capable of achieving everything Dark has and more? That Elazer is quite possibly the best Zerg in the world? Is that what you are saying?
Please tell me I have misunderstood.
I didn't say he is better across all matchups. I said he is better in zvz and at least as good in ZvP and inferior in zvt.
Are you serious? Even if he has a 75% win rate against best koreans in zvz he will lose games.
I was extremely unimpressed by Elazer in group stage. He got completely dumpstered by herO, beat up the weakest player at Blizzcon, and then squeezed past Dark in the most notoriously coinflippy matchup.
And now somehow you think he's better than Dark? Dark, one of the greatest Zergs in the world? Dark had an off day, and lost the ZvZ coinflip. Elazer hasn't demonstrated anything remotely close to Dark's career results. There's no justification whatsoever for claiming he is better than Dark.
Special, on the other hand, put on a far better showing in group stage. He played very well and advanced in first over two Koreans. Sure, Stats and TY were in poor form, but Special's form was still very impressive.
I dont know how people can believe that Elazer > Dark
It's like if Getafe win a match against Real Madrid, Getafe isnt superior...
If you cannot read, do not express such biassed opinions. Dark lost about 50 times in the last month against Elazer online. Now he lost in the most important tournament. Live with it. It is like Getafe won the Spanish league and then won in Champions league 2:1 against Real and the fans still could not believe this.
I dont know how people can believe that Elazer > Dark
It's like if Getafe win a match against Real Madrid, Getafe isnt superior...
If you cannot read, do not express such biassed opinions. Dark lost about 50 times in the last month against Elazer online. Now he lost in the most important tournament. Live with it. It is like Getafe won the Spanish league and then won in Champions league 2:1 against Real and the fans still could not believe this.
When did Dark lose vs Elazer so much? just curious
To be fair, even if Elazer owns Dark in ZvZ that STILL doesn't make him better than Dark. Head to head is certainly not the only thing to consider.
For instance, Dark can actually beat Innovation in a bo7 whereas I don't think Elazer ever could barring a miracle and Inno having a really bad day. Similarly I think Dark would have a much better record than Elazer vs. most other high level competition.
Not trying to shit on Elazer though, he has been good lately and is a scary player. It's just Dark, considering everything, is better.
Why the hell, do you people loose some much time in trying to judge who's better.... There's totally no sense in that. In this game, there is a lot of players playing on very high level, they sometimes win and sometimes loose, depending on many different factors... Just enjoy the matches and maybe make a predictions but stop with all this "he's better" nonsense.
When did Dark lose vs Elazer so much? just curious
During ladder play. You know these wins do not come from the Void, they are a Legacy of what already happened.
#1 on the KR Ladder Serral got knocked out by Gumiho in the Ro16. Zest has been ranked #1 on the KR Ladder multiple times this year, and is not even at Blizzcon. "Ladder hero" is the term, I think.
It's been thoroughly demonstrated that ladder rank has little to no bearing on how players actually perform in offline tournaments. Ladder rank and actual skill are correlated, but the relation is NOT biconditional. A highly skilled player will likely be ranked highly on ladder. High ladder rank does NOT indicate high skill. ^This definition of "high skill" being made in the context of professional gaming; obviously high ladder rank does indicate an extremely high level of skill compared to the general ladder population.
Unless you're claiming Serral is actually better than all the Koreans, don't try and use the ladder as justification for anything.
EPT
2017 WCS Global Finals
TY and 
Stats, while also making SpeCial the first quarterfinalist.
soO took his standard 32 supply third base on Odyssey. Still on two bases, Neeb attacked with adepts oracles. He was took a worker lead, but soO quickly changed gears, going into a nydus worm. Zerglings took down Neeb’s third unopposed as the nydus ferried the queens and roaches into Neeb's main. They were met by adepts, oracles and pylon overcharges, but it wasn’t enough. Neeb never had time to catch his breath as endless units overran the TING Protoss, giving soO the 1-0 lead.
