The StarCraft 2 Greatest Of All Time - An in depth analysis
Table of content 1. Introduction 2. General methodology 3. Aligulac rank analysis 4. Analysis of Aligulac Hall of Fame 5. Match win rates analysis 6. Tournament Analysis 6.1 Percentage of won tournaments 6.2 Average place achieved 6.3 Tournament score 6.4 Efficiency score 7. Discussion 8. Opinion piece/hypotheticals
1. Introduction Determining the greatest StarCraft 2 player of all time is no easy task. The challenges inherent in such an undertaking are manifold. StarCraft 2, a game of immense complexity and strategic depth, has seen numerous players rise to prominence through different eras, each contributing to the evolution of the game in unique ways. Moreover, the ever-changing meta, the introduction of new strategies, and the diverse range of opponents faced over the years make it difficult to establish a definitive benchmark for greatness.
My goal in this analysis is to sift through the myriad accomplishments and performances to identify who stands out as the ultimate StarCraft 2 player. This endeavor is driven by a desire to celebrate the extraordinary skill and dedication that these players bring to the game, and to offer a comprehensive evaluation that honors their contributions to the StarCraft 2 community. I will try to be as objective as possible, keeping subjective categorizations to a minimum, while accepting that there are subjective topics like difficulty of different eras that will always retain some sort of subjectivity. I will further give detailed explanations about my methodology and I will be as transparent as possible.
Who am I anyway? I am a long time StarCraft 2 fan and have a background in critical thinking as I was part of many debate clubs. I enjoy doing statistics and to analyze this subject was a long time goal of mine. Simply put - I am a number’s guy. But enough of me… let’s get to the interesting part: The players.
In a first screening I evaluated the players that come up most frequently in GOAT discussions. These pre-contenders are: ByuN, Dark, INnoVation, herO, Life, Maru, MMA, Mvp, Rain, Reynor, Rogue, Serral, soO, sOs, TaeJa, TY, Zest.
For the pre-screening I looked at the following metrics: - World Championships won - Premier Tournaments won - Duration of career - Win rate against top Korean players in any given year
It became obvious pretty soon that four players stand out without question among the 16 pre-contenders. The final contenders for my GOAT-discussion thus are: INnoVation, Maru, Rogue and Serral.
As you will see, I did extensive analyses of these player’s careers. The player’s results in the excel sheets will be listed in accordance to their first entrance into the top 10 ranks of the world. The order thus is INnoVation, Maru, Serral, Rogue.
2. General methodology The 3 main metrics I analyzed are consistency, dominance and efficiency and all available data until the 30th of June 2024 was used in this article.
Consistency - A metric that is showing if players are able to perform over long periods of time at the same level or a similar quality. A sub-category would be duration, although duration by itself doesn’t say anything about quality. Dominance - A quality that shows that a player is stronger or better than other players. Efficiency - A metric to show that a player is able to generate the best results in a short period of time
At first glance efficiency and consistency might seem to contradict each other. Consistency is more like a base level that needs to be cleared. For my pre-screening I used 3 years of playing at the top level as an entrance barrier to the final contender list. Still, some players have more than a decade of playing at top level. Thus, players can be more efficient than others over long periods of time, amassing more titles in similar times frames.
Only looking at tournament placements like other GOAT discussions did in the past would leave out important context. Thus, I evaluated the following data in order to substantiate the 3 factors consistency, dominance and efficiency.
Aligulac rank analysis - Percentage of occupying rank 1 on Aligulac - Percentage of occupying rank 1 or 2 on Aligulac Aligulac Hall of Fame Match win rates Tournament analysis (including an era analysis and in depth analysis of the tournaments played by these players) - Percentage of won tournaments - Average place achieved - Tournament score - Efficiency score
It is important to mention that I ONLY looked at match win rates or tournaments where top Koreans participated. I did this because of the correct notion that it would be easier for Serral to score points in these metrics as he played in tournaments that are region-locked which have heavy influence on match win rates, placement in tournaments or the percentage of won tournaments. !The only exception for this is one sub-analysis (Tournament score) as I found no fair or objective way to make up for the time Serral would have lost by simply leaving out these tournaments completely. I addressed this issue by devaluing the region locked tournaments immensely, but more on that down below.! All the data gathered is available online for free at aligulac.com and liqupedia.com so everyone is welcomed to double check if I made any mistakes to let me correct them in an update.
That being said, this is a very dry subject. I am also neither a native English speaker nor do I have a proper education in writing and on top I am also human - thus errors in form of grammar, bad wording, boring writing or even wrong countings at times can occur. I tried to analyze the topic of GOAT in StarCraft2 to the best of my ability and was attempting to look at every angle of argumentation in the discussion. Unfortunately I also have no skills whatsoever in presenting the gathered data in a nice fashion, thus excel needs to do. It was a lot of work and I hope that you will enjoy this little discussion.
3. Aligulac rank analysis Methodology I clicked through all aligulac lists and made notes whether a given contender was ranked 1, 2, 3 or was placed inside the top 10. I then calculated their respective percentages of being either ranked 1 or ranked 1 or 2. I also made notes in regards to interesting events and thus this brief timeline was established.
May 2013/List 83 INnoVation enters Top 10 July 2013/List 89 INnoVation claims rank 1 for the first time Jan 2015/List 127 Maru enters Top 10 June 2017/List 191 Serral enters Top 10 Dec 2017/List 203 Serral claims rank 1 for the first time May 2018/List 214 Maru claims rank 1 for the first time Sept 2017/List 197 Rogue enters Top 10 Nov 2022/List 332 Rogue leaves for Military Service Sept 2021/List 301 INnoVation leaves for Military Service March 2023/List 340 INnoVation returns from Military Service and re-enters on rank 18 June 2023/List 348 INnoVation ends his career on rank 25 April 2024/List 368 Rogue returns from Military Service and re-enters on rank 17 April 2024/List 369 Serral loses rank 1 due to inactivity (Military Service); Maru claims rank 1 May 2024/List 370 Maru loses rank 1 to Clem May 2024/List 371 Serral reclaims rank 1 with a 276 points rating difference to Clem
Things that stood out: 1. Serral has occupied either Rank 1 or 2 since Dec 2017/List 2023 when he claimed rank 1 for the first time (he only lost it on list 369 and 370 due to the start of his military service where a break in playing signed him as inactive). 2. Maru lost rank 2 in that same time frame to several people including Dark, Reynor, Clem and MaxPax. 3. Maru never reached INoVation’s rank 1 count (see tables below). 4. Only a total of 5 players achieved to be the best of the world against all three races: Mvp, TaeJa, INnoVation, Byun and Serral who did so on several occasions over a period of 6 years (list 249, 262 and 317, 375). I did not include DIMAGA who was the best against all 3 races when the game still had under 100 players at the beginning of StarCraft 2.
Results The table below shows what the counting and calculations ended up in. INnoVation for example played in the Top 10 for 167 Aligulac lists. Out of those 167 lists, he was ranked 1 32 times, ranked 2 38 times and ranked 3 20 times.
Serral by far is the best player in this comparison. He was either ranked 1 or 2 since December 2017 - this is a quota of 93,65% and occupied rank 1 71,43% of the time, since he first entered the top 10. The 2nd best player by percentage and absolute numbers if only looking at rank 1 is INnoVation as he beats Maru in absolute numbers (32 vs 30) as well as relatively to his amount in the top 10 (19,16% vs 13,95%). This seems only to be because of the emergence of Serral, as Maru would have been ranked 1 innumerable times more often, if it wasn’t for the Finnish player. Maru is placed 2nd if both rank 1 and 2 are taken into account. Rogue was never ranked 1 and was present in the top 3 only 4 times.
Which metrics does this analysis address? We can safely deduct that all 4 players have a sufficient amount of time played at the top level. A counterexample to duration would be Mvp who was hyper dominant for 1 year but then fell off pretty quickly. The analysis also gives credit to the player’s domination and consistency, as it takes a lot of both to stay in the top 10 for such long periods of time.
4. Aligulac Hall of Fame Methodology I simply looked at the Aligulac Hall of Fame, which is on their website. The HoF is - as it is stated on the aligulac page - a measurement of a player’s domination over time, so called periods of domination. Aligulac measures the rating point distance a player has to rank 7 when they are ranked 1 to 6. They add up this distance for all lists where players are ranked 6 and above and add up the score as Period-Points (PP). The system thus rewards large rating gaps as well as long periods of being at the top.
Results
Three of the contenders are in the top 5 of the Aligulac Hall of Fame: Serral being first with 53536 PP, Maru in second place with 32761 PP and INnoVation comes in 5th with 13083 PP. Rogue is 34th with 566 PP. This analysis by Aligulac is congruent with my findings and makes Serral dominance better visible with a higher resolution as the rating point gap is included too. He is more than 60% ahead of Maru and has around more than 4 times the amount of PP than rank 3 Reynor who sports 13398 PP. Serral, similar to the first analysis, dominates this analysis quite heavily.
Which metrics does this analysis address? As stated on the aligulac page, the HoF measures the metrics consistency and dominance as dominance is recorded over time.
But Rank is not the only metric we should look at. Let us turn to overall Match Win Rates.
5. Match win rates Methodology I went on the Aligulac match history of a respective contender and singled out given years (for example 2013-01-01 till 2013-12-31) as well as the country (South Korean). As Serral’s score versus the others was not included in this list (as he obviously isn’t Korean), I also made notes of all encounters INnoVation, Maru and Rogue had with Serral, which I added into the equation. For example, below Rogue’s match win rate list is shown. In 2017 he played a total of 127 matches vs the top Koreans and won 81 for a win rate percentage of 63,78%. As he also played and won one match versus Serral that year, his total win rate went up to 64,06%.
Results
Serral for a third time, sits on top with an overall lifetime match win rate of 69,58%. As I said before, this is only versus top Koreans. What was interesting to see was the fact that if you look at the best years that have been played, Serral occupies the first 4 spots. In 2020 and 2018 he has 85,71% (2020 is rated higher, as he played more games), in 2023 he scored 85,11% and 76,67% in 2019. Maru follows in place number 5 with his 2021’s 76,39%. It should be noted that - if things keep going like they are now - Serral will finish this year with a match win rate of over 92% versus the top Koreans. Maru will defend his 5th spot as he is heading towards over 82%. It should further be mentioned that the Korean players' match win rates are slightly inflated in relation to Serral, as Serral only plays the top of the Korean players. The Koreans on the other hand also play lower rated players - who are easier to beat - in qualifiers or lower Premier tier tournaments. To showcase this, I looked at the adversaries rank that a given player faced in a certain year. I controlled for two categories. First, players ranked 41 - 80 and second, players ranked below 80. In the year 2018 for example, Serral played 3 Koreans from the first category (rank 52, 67 and 60). Maru played 6 Koreans (rank 2x 54, 57, 56, 41, and 45) from the first and 3 Koreans (rank 88, 81, 138) from the second category. Serral’s win rate thus went from 85,71% to 84,00% and Maru’s from 66,18% to 62,71%. This is because he not only played more lower ranked players but also lost to one. Another example would be 2021, where Serral played 2 players from the first and 1 player from the second category and Maru 7 from the first and 4 from the second, again losing to one of them. Serral therefore dropped from 70,31% to 68,85%, Maru from 76,39% to 70,97%. I didn’t include this correction in my overall rating but wanted to highlight that this effect is clearly measurable and would boost Serral’s result in relation to the 3 Korean contenders even further if it was included . To give you a small impression how this looks like, I included the following screenshot. The lists were too long to include them entirely.
Out of fun, I also looked at the player’s rating after they established their spot in the top10 which led to Serral attaining a 76,59% - meaning over 3 out of 4 matches - match win rate versus the best Koreans of the world since 2017. But as this correction only helped Maru and Serral I simply wanted to include this fun fact as a side note.
Which metrics does this analysis address? Dominance and consistency are measured by this analysis. If you are only good for 1 or 2 years, consistency lacks, if your domination isn’t on point, you get lower win rates.
6. Tournament analysis I want to start this section of my GOAT analysis while addressing the “era issue”, briefly summing up the game’s history before explaining methodology for this section. History StarCraft 2 peaked in popularity and player count immediately following its release in 2010, particularly around 2010-2014 (some would say 2013). The game sold over three million copies within the first month, reflecting a strong and immediate interest from both old fans and new players. The competitive scene peaked at the end of this period, even going into 2015, where the professional scene saw both established legends and emerging stars competing. Challenges following this period included the match fixing scandal, competition due to the rise of other popular esports titles like League of Legends and the disbandment of KeSPA, which marked the end of an era. Many professional teams associated with KeSPA either disbanded or shifted their focus to other games. The competitive scene in Korea underwent significant changes, with a shift towards more decentralized and independent tournament organization and a greater reliance on international competitions. Between 2016 and 2018, several notable StarCraft II professional players retired or significantly reduced their competitive activity. This period saw the departure of some legendary figures from the scene, such as Life, MC and Bomber while others like Mvp or Rain already retired in 2015. Reasons for retirement were manifold, including increased competition through new talents, the desire for a new career path, financial challenges through the disbandment of KeSPA as well as personal reasons like health issues or burn out. Despite these challenges, the StarCraft II community remained resilient. Independent tournaments, such as those organized by AfreecaTV and other international events, continued to support the competitive scene. The departure of the above mentioned players in congruence with the disbandment of KeSPA marked the end of an era but also highlighted the evolving nature of the StarCraft II scene. New players continued to rise and maintain the competitive spirit of the game, ensuring its ongoing legacy in the e-sports world. Non-Korean players like Serral and Reynor, as well as later on MaxPax and Clem rose to prominence, demonstrating that the game still had a strong and competitive player base. On top, many names that already were competing at the start of the game or the peak of competitiveness were still around such as sOs, Zest, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, , Classic, TY, soO, herO, Cure, Dark, ByuN, Stats, Solar, Maru and INnoVation. These players demonstrated an ability to adapt to changes in the game’s meta and maintain high skill levels. They not only continued to compete but also often achieved significant results, showcasing the enduring appeal and competitive nature of StarCraft II with their careers spanning multiple eras of the game and them contributing to the game’s legacy in the e-sports world.
A key question in regards to the “era-issue” is whether it was harder to win titles back then or today. At first glance, this question is easy to answer as the depth of talent in Korea was immense, with many top-tier players vying for titles, making it extremely challenging to win major tournaments. This notion is supported by the argument that the bigger the player pool is, the more likely it is that talents and top-tier players emerge. But a second look might give other reasons why there were so many different title winners back then. The WCS system was complex, with separate regions and premier tournaments like GSL and SSL having extremely high stakes and intense competition. Players often competed in multiple leagues simultaneously, adding to the difficulty due to a packed schedule and constant high-level competition - at times it was simply impossible to compete in every event. Further, frequent balance patches and meta shifts meant players had to constantly adapt to new strategies and changes. The intensity of competition, especially in Korean leagues, was arguably at its peak in 2015. From 2018 onward, the WCS system was more streamlined, with clearer paths to qualification for global events. By this time, the game also had reached a more stable meta with fewer drastic changes, allowing players to develop and refine their strategies more consistently. While the strategic depth reached ever newer heights, players had more time to adapt and perfect their playstyles in a relatively stable environment - a different quality of its own. Players like Serral and Reynor rose to prominence, and winning titles required overcoming a broader array of international talent, which added a different layer of difficulty, many could not overcome.
It needs to be pointed out that it is my opinion that the issues of scheduling events, burn out, injuries and the structure of tournaments like Code S are the main reasons why winning titles was so much harder. There are many players that penetrated the top 10 as soon as 2012 or held rank 2 at completely different eras/metas. It is illogical to assume that these players all suddenly got worse, once the new generation arrived. For example we have INnoVation who entered the top 10 in 2013, Scarlett being ranked 9 in July 2014 or herO who was ranked 1 at that time. Or even Maru who was entering the top 10 in early 2015. I doubt anyone would argue that Maru was worse in 2018 than he was in 2015, as he matured as a player and as most players got better with age. These players simply adapted to the new environment better than others.
To sum this history lesson up: In my opinion,StarCraft 2’s competitiveness was peaking in 2015, but player’s skill levels which are portrayed through the ranking system were not influenced by the sudden player decline. This theory is supported by the fact that match win rates or tournament win rates didn’t suddenly go through the roof for everyone. We saw a constant change from older to newer players like it has been the case throughout the game’s history. Therefore, all tournaments post-2018 - because of their inherently more difficult structure as well as the peak competitiveness - in this analysis will be given a handicap. Pre-2018 tournaments are awarded a bonus of 50% in all analyzed topics. It has to be noted that the tournament count went down a lot over the years, meaning that there were also less Premier Tournaments to win post-2018. This negative effect was ignored though to make up even more for the competitive nature of the time surrounding 2015.
6.1 Percentage of won tournaments Methodology For the percentage of won tournaments lists I counted every tournament a given player was participating in - for Serral only the ones with top Korean participation. Then I counted the wins, calculated the percentage of winning tournaments and added 50% to each tournament that was won pre-2018. This mostly helps INnoVation as most of his tournaments and wins are located in that time frame. Maru benefits from this correction in two years, Rogue in one, Serral in no year. Here is a small screenshot from the data analysis.
Results Once again, Serral’s dominance is shown in the CFE (Controlled for era) ranking. Serral comes out on top with a 34,00% win rate. This means that out of the 50 Premier tournaments he participated in, he won 17. Mind you, that this only includes tournaments where the top Koreans were involved, no region locked WCS. Rogue places 2nd on this list with 20,83, followed closely by INnoVation with 19,12 and Maru with 18,75.
Which metrics does this analysis address? This metric clearly highlights dominance. To score a high percentage on this list, one needs to be better than other players. The longer a player achieves this, the more consistent he is as well.
6.2 Average place achieved Methodology For the calculation of the average place achieved, I started by singling out the prime years of the players. I did so, to make the comparison fairer for players who had longer careers in the pro scene and weren’t always able to play at the top level. One could argue that this is unfair to players like Serral and Rogue who were simply kick-starting into the pro-scene in comparison (a testimony to efficiency), but this correction - again - gives credit to the harder era, as it mostly targets the pre-2018 period (And - Spoiler Alert - didn’t influence the result). This correction helped INnoVation and Maru by a very large margin more than it did help Serral and Rogue - Serral benefitting the least in relation to everyone else. After figuring out the players’ prime years (INnoVation 2014-2017, Maru 2018-2024, Serral 2018-2024 and Rogue 2017-2022) I was looking up every placement of a player in these years (For Serral only in tournaments with top Korean participation) and averaging the result out. After that, all results pre-2018 were divided by 3 and multiplied by 2 to adjust for era (50% handicap). This helps INnoVation the most and Rogue in one year. Maru and Serral do not benefit from this correction. Below you can see Rogue’s counting sheet were 2017 was corrected by 50%/factor 1.5 and which ended in an average place of 8,56 over the 6 year that were counted.
Results Despite receiving no correction to help him, Serral distances the competition once again. Serral stands at an average rank of 3,20 in his prime, meaning on average Serral reaches the Semi-Finals when he goes into a tournament. INnoVation comes in 2nd (3,83), Maru 3rd (5,20) and Rogue 4th (8,56). Keep in mind that INnoVation’s score is highly inflated due to 2013, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 not being counted. A ranking of the best years played, finds Serral on first place with a score of 1,00 (so far he won every tournament he played in 2024), Maru comes in 2nd with 2,25 (also 2024) and Serral on 3rd to 5th (2018: 2,92, 2019: 2,92 and 2022: 3,17).
Which metrics does this analysis address? We once again have a result that showcases dominance. To be able to place high in these top level events simply shows how a player is stronger than his adversaries in given tournaments.
6.3 Tournament score Methodology Tournament score. This metric took different multipliers to determine a score for Premier Tournaments. First we already have the era-multiplier I mentioned before. Pre-2018 tournaments have a multiplier of 1,5, post-2018 tournaments have 1. The rank multiplier is next. In my opinion, to be the greatest of all time, winning a tournament matters a lot more than coming in 2nd, let alone placing 3rd or 4th. But I don’t want to be accused of favoring Serral, thus I settled for the ratio as Mizenhauer did in his GOAT list, which is 3:2, meaning rank 1 has the multiplier 1,5, rank 2 has the multiplier 1 (I would have gone for 2:0,99). Rank 3 and 4 both have the multiplier 0,45. I didn’t make a distinction between these two as it doesn’t make much of a difference for the end result. But to be precise: INnoVation would lose out on some points as he has 4 more 3rd than 4th places, while Maru gains a little bit as he sports two more 4th than 3rd places. Serral loses the most points by this decision, as he has 5 3rd places and no 4th ones. Rogue loses 1 3rd place difference. The last multiplier was considering the tournament and was by far the statistic which took the longest time to put together. Tournaments are built differently with each tournament containing unique structures and diverse players that participate in it. I looked at all (yes, all… this took forever) tournaments where the contenders placed first and second. Then I looked at the aligulac page of the final of a given tournament. It was too much work to do it for every step for non-weekenders, so I settled for this compromise. It shouldn’t influence the result too much thoug. I further made notes of the ranks of all players who got into Ro16 and Ro8. I made averages and compared the tournaments while also considering structure and prestige. This is how my excel sheets for the tournament count looks like:
This procedure led to 7 categories that were established which are mostly similar to the ranking that Mizenhauer pointed out as well, although I cannot say anything about the actual weighting he gave these tournaments. 1. World Championships and World Championship Level events. This category includes WCS Global Finals, BlizzCons and IEM World Championships after 2018, representing the most prestigious events of the world, where the best of the best compete. This category has a multiplier of 1,1. 2. GSL Code S, OSL, SSL until 2020 come in at a value of 1. The separation to later GSLs was made due to the restructuring of the tournament after 2020 Code S season 3 where player amount and difficulty of advancing was diminished a lot. 3. ESL Masters as well as DreamHack Season Finals from 2020 onwards, Master’s Coliseum. In contrast to Mizenhauer I devalued these events slightly in comparison to Code S, OSL and SSL. Although DH Last Chance 2022 (won by Maru), DH Last Chance 2021 (Serral 2nd place) as well as Master’s Coliseum 6 and 7 (both won by Serral) could have easily been upgraded to category 2 as the average player rank was simply absurd. MC6 had an Ro8 average of 4,75 and MC7 of 5,75 with 4,5 being the lowest possible score. These two tournaments were simply filled with the best the world had to offer until the very last moment. But out of respect to the old era (which again is a small added buff to this time) I devalued this category slightly at 0,95. This decision again disfaors Serral the most. 4. GSL Code S 2021 and following, GSL vs the World, WESG. The WESG should have been positioned in category 5 according to the involved players in Ro16 and Ro8 but was given an upward correction to category 4, as the prize pool was insane. GSL vs the world was corrected downward from category 3. Although the best of the world competed, the tournament structure was rather simple and it is widely regarded as a “show tournament” despite the best of the world attending. This category is a good example of my thought processes as for example 2013 DreamHack Open: Bucharest was corrected upward as only one player lowered the average score immensely. Lastly: 2013 WCS Season 1 was corrected upwards for era-reasonings, as it would have been placed in category 6 following the average player count. Category 4 is valued 0,85. 5. Category 5 includes random events such as King of Battles, miscellaneous Afreeca TV tournaments or ESL Masters locked regionals. Value: 0,8. 6. Mostly region-locked ESLs and HomeStoryCups which see another sharp decrease in value: 0,7. 7. This category only includes the Gold Professional Championship 2019 Season 1, which has the worst Ro16 and Ro8 ratings (86,38 and 44,75) as well as low price money. Nothing to write home about… sorry INnoVation, I can only multiply this tournament at 0,5.
As you can see, I did not include team scores, as I see the GOAT discussion as an enterprise of an individual. A player could have been lifted up or put down by a team and including team scores would dilute the results heavily. But player’s accomplishments - such as Maru’s phenomenal Proleague run in 2016 (22-4) - will be included in the match win rate analysis, to give credit to individual accomplishments and to not discard team achievements entirely. This way, the influence of team members is kept out of the equation, which I think is the fairest approach for all players.
I further calculated the final score for each participant. Era-correction was not necessary here, as the era-multiplier was implemented directly in the equation. Results As most would have probably suspected, the long careers of Maru and Serral and their inhuman penetration of ultra high tier tournaments over long periods of time left the other contenders no chance. Serral comes out on top by only a very slight margin (46,64 vs 46,41). Because of this close call and the subjectivity of weighting first place versus second place as well as the tournament multiplier, I count this as Maru and Serral both having placed first here. One could argue for awarding Serral first place as he was more efficient (he needed a lot less years) and had many and harsh penalties placed against him (the less favorable place1-place2-ratio, mashing place 3 and 4 in one pot, having the most highly devalued tournaments and not upwarding the tournaments where he placed in high positions), but it would also be fine to place Maru on top for his longer career accomplishments and scoring in an era that was more competitive. Honestly, I value this score as a tie between the two.
Which metrics does this analysis address? The tournament score is a clear indicator of consistency and dominance, similar to the Aligulac Hall of Fame, although the HoF has a different resolution as it incorporates a ranking difference as a measure of dominance. Here the dominance aspect can be seen as how often a player is able to penetrate high placements.
6.4. Efficiency-score Methodology For the efficiency score I simply divided the Tournament score by the sum of years a player was placed 4th or above. The higher the score, the better. Results: Efficiency-wise, Serral comes out clearly on top with an efficiency-score of 5,83. Maru being 2nd with 4,22, INnoVation sporting 2,64 and Rogue being 4th at 2,24.
Which metrics does this analysis address? The efficiency-score obviously tells us about a player’s efficiency.
7. Discussion Initially I wanted to build up a sort of ranking to build up anticipation, but decided against it, as this turned out much longer than I wanted it to be (Because it was important to me that you all are able to understand my thought processes as well as the methodology used). Along the way, it became pretty obvious that one player stood out by a very large margin. Thus, I decided to skip the ranking and rather start directly by addressing the elephant in the room. But before I do, here are the final rankings of each analysis in one screenshot.
Serral won 7 out of 7 analyses while sharing one of them (tournament score) with Maru. He often did so in a fashion that distances every other contender by a large margin, while on several occasions being much harder penalized than other contenders. Where it was possible to divide results into yearly sub-categories, Serral occupied 4 out of the top 5 spots. These findings are absolutely monstrous… there is no other way to describe it. Maru is the player with longest duration of playing at the very top level.
The most impressive things I came along while researching this topic are the following: 1. Serral occupying rank 1 or 2 since December 2017, having an over 71,43% rank 1 percentage relative to his top 10 appearances. On top, he was on rank 1 for 36% of the game’s history (135 out of 375 lists) and ranked 1 or 2 for 47,2% of the entirety of the game. Maru is in the top 10 for 57,33% since the release of StarCraft 2, Serral for 50,4%. 2. I didn’t include this metric in my overall analysis as it is hard to compare players with it. But I made a list of the contender’s match records versus other professionals they played at least 10 times. A minimum amount of played matches is necessary to control for flukes. For example, a gold player might have beaten INnoVation or Serral on their journey to become the top of the world twice, thus having a 100% win rate and record of 2:0 against them. I figured 10 to be a good amount in order to remove randomness. In this metric, Serral does not have a negative win record against ANY other professional he played against regularly since his first Major Tournament win in 2015. Maru for example has an equal record versus co-Contender INnoVation (12:12) and a negative win record versus Serral (15:4:2). It should be noted that the only relevant player that sports a positive record versus Serral is DRG (3:4) but as I said, this record didn’t meet the criteria as too few matches were played. 3. Serral won 34% of the tournaments he participated in. If this number is controlled for the years after he finished school and started playing StarCraft 2 seriously (2018 and later), it goes up to 39,53%, meaning Serral won nearly 40% of the tournaments he participated in since 2018. 4. Serral is the only player to be the best of the world against all 3 races at different metas of the game (5 players in total ever achieved this feat in the game’s history). 5. While researching for another article, I came along this record: Serral hold the longest winning streak against top Koreans. 19 consecutive wins from the 17th of May 2023 until 3rd of August 2023. The second longest winning streak is also Serral with 18 consecutive wins from 4th of August 2018 till 1st of March 2019. Serral is by far the most dominant player this game has ever seen and he has been showing this dominance ever since he took the game seriously after finishing school. He was more efficient in placements, tournament score and his match win rates are outworldly. That Serral made it even close to Maru, let alone score marginally higher, on the tournament score surprised me, as I thought that Maru would be the clear winner here because of his extremely long, impressive career (and the heavy penalties I put in Serral’s path). It could very well be, that Maru takes over this analysis in the future as ESL locked regionals are worth less than GSL in my scoring system and because of the fact that GSL is being held 3 times per year, while ESL regionals are only twice a year. It also surprised me that INnoVation still sports more #1 spots than Maru despite him having basically retired in September 2021 (he only came back after military for 3 months) - recency bias on me, I guess.
Out of fun I looked at Mvp’s inhuman year of 2011. He won 6 out 13 tournaments (1 of these was BlizzCon 2011), which means that - era adjusted - he has a tournament win rate of 69,23%. He finished on an average place of 2,79 - era adjusted - 1,86. Utterly ridiculous. In this year he was also the best player against all 3 races. It is a pity, that he only had this outstanding success for such a short period of time but it is very clear, that this is the best year that was ever played in StarCraft 2 history, when keeping in mind era difficulties as well as the large amount of tournaments that were played.
As I said before I initially planed to have a complete ranking written out but later on decided against it, as the result became way too obvious. I thus thought, I’d spent my time addressing the notions that are mostly voiced by Korean elitists against Serral being the GOAT.
These are: a. Serral only is so good because Zerg is overpowered b. Serral never won GSL, a preparation style tournament c. Serral can’t be GOAT because he didn’t play in the most competitive era
It should be highlighted that this next part of the discussion includes much more subjective opinion. I tried to ground these opinions in coherent logic and rational thinking, but this part is clearly separeted from the data driven writings up until here. I also want to point out that it is not my intention to downplay the achievements of players from other eras or Maru in this next section - my only goal is to give a different perspective to established consensus in the Korean elitist scene.
8. Opinion piece/hypotheticals a. Serral only is so good because Zerg is overpowered As even prominent proponents of the notion that Maru or Rogue is GOAT don’t really consider this argument to be substantial, I will keep this rather short with a couple of points. First: In the timeframe of 2016-2021 many big names retired. The least of them were Zerg, meaning that a power vacuum for Protoss and Terran emerged. Unfortunately for Protoss, one of its upcoming talents and the current best Protoss player of the world only plays online and is thus missing from a substantial amount of major events. Second: Terran and Zerg each saw 2 extremely talented players on the rise: Maru, Serral, Reynor and Clem. Two of those are the biggest outliers in the history of the game since 2018… one is playing Terran, the other is playing Zerg. If we remove these two outliers, the game becomes a lot more balanced. Third: On the current Aligulac-List (376) we have 3 Zerg, 4 Terran and 3 Protoss players present. In the top 40 there are 11 Zerg, 13 Terran and 16 Protoss. These points combined give a much more nuanced picture of the current balancing and it explains why professionals don’t give much thought to balance issues. Or as a certain proverb goes: “The balance can’t be that bad, when every race is whining equally.”
b. Serral never won GSL, a preparation style tournament Although it is true that Serral never actually won a GSL, he definitely has shown that he is able to win preparation style tournaments, as he won the TeamLiquid StarLeague 9, where he beat Maru in the finals. Of course, this category 5 tournament is not comparable to a GSL, but it was held from 30th of June till 4th of September 2022, indicating that players were able to prepare for their matches extensively. To me, this was always a very weak argument, as most people who put it forth, seem to forget that Serral probably is arguably the best strategic player to ever touch mouse and keyboard. It seems like in recent years his preparation has reached another level of game understanding. A good example for this notion was his win at IEM Katowice 2024. It seemed like he had a perfect plan for every group match, as well as the knock out stage. His adjusted roach- and worker-count versus ByuN to counter ByuN’s momentum and giving credit to a strategy, which took him down a couple of months earlier, followed by an utterly unexpected timing all-in in game 2 was spot on. In the quarter-finals Serral attacked Clem precisely at the moments that the other one usually strikes in order to divert his attention to his own home. Also his defense against Clem’s Liberators seemed a lot better in comparison to previous losses to Clem. The fast lair-build on equilibrium versus Dark or his first game versus Maru in the finals stick out too (although the 16-SUV-kill which was set up by one drone opening up the mineral line at around minute 9:30 on Alcyone was utterly beautiful to watch as well, which was a map specific move Serral prepared). Serral simply is a preparation machine, thus it never made sense to me, why this tournament style should be detrimental to him. If anything, it benefits his strengths. NesTea once said that overseas games have a tighter schedule and that domestic games (meaning the ones in Korea) are more relaxed. This furthers the impression, that weekenders require an utterly different skill set and that at least this player, favors preparation tournaments. As said above: Serral has shown to excel at both and preparation tournaments suit his strong points. Players at the top level also generally know each others strengths and weaknesses quite well. It perhaps was necessary in the past to incorporate preparation tournaments as the meta changed a lot more, but nowadays in this more stable environment, most tournaments are well prepared anyway, especially as there are fewer ones to begin with. Further, GSL nowadays also lost a lot of prestige due to restructuring as well as financial appeal. People also tend to forget how incredible difficult it is to play in GSL for foreigners. You need flights, accomodation for a couple of months, living in a foreign country away from friends and family as well as being away from your usual practice environment. You’d also probably have to bring practivce partners aswell. All that will probably eat up any prize money GSL will net you (last GSL was 3.700 dollars prize money for first place). On top, you are on a stage where it is expected of you as a foreigner to perform, playing against players who will do their utmost best to beat you as they see losing against an “overseaer” as hurting their own pride and the pride of Korea, as Won Jong-Wook, manager of StarTale once said. Kang Dong-Hoon, manager of LG-IM explained when talking about overseas-tournaments: “Performance falls back to proficiency in basic skills and personal competence. There is just no room to prep set games against individual opponents. They just have to take a seat in the arena and play in a very general sort of way.”. He also pointed out that losing against foreigners is “not an option” and “unacceptable”. The same is true for foreigners in Korea. They are at a disadvantage right from the get-go.Although Serral already won on Korean soil twice, the denial of repeating that “shame” is something an entire nation would try to achieve. It also is not like the GOAT-deniers would happily accept Serral, once he wins a GSL. They probably would say that even if he won, he only won once in a watered down GSL (which obviously is true) and that this one win doesn’t prove anything. And if he loses, well, he has to try again in an environment where everyone will be set out to take him down. There is simply nothing to gain for Serral in a GSL.
c. Serral can’t be GOAT because he didn’t play in the most competitive era As I established earlier 2015 was indeed peak StarCraft 2 competitive-wise. But what does this information tell us? Does it tell us that a player has to have dominated in that era? Or only played in it? If so, who is it? Because no one is standing out from that time like Serral does in all of StarCraft 2’s history. The same is true for Maru. He still needed to mature as a player and while he won one Premier Tournament in 2013 and one in 2015 after entering the top 10, no one would have put him on the very top pre-2018, as - for example - INnoVation had a much more impressive career with more titles, more years at the top including better win rates and more consistency. Also Zest, soO and sOs come to mind. So if people are denying Serral the title because he was too young or didn’t have the cultural background to start the game as soon as the Koreans did on a professional level, logically Maru couldn’t be GOAT either. The bulk of Maru’s achievements - 15 ouf of his 17 Premier Tournament titles - came in 2018 and later. He also never achieved what Serral did while the old guard was still alive and kicking: winning the most prestigious trophy there is. As a matter of fact, he never won a World Championship title at all. Coming back to the point, some people make about Serral never trying GSL: Yes, Serral never tried and thus never won GSL. But Maru tried several times to win a World Championship title and failed every time. He could never win the trophy where the best of the world gather and crown himself the World Champion. Thus, this question really needs to be answered: Can someone who tried several times to obtain the most prestigous trophy, but failed over such a long period be truly the Greatest Of All Time? It seems like Maru was either too young and inexperienced or skill-wise not equipped to shine pre-2018 to his fullest potential (my guess is the former) and to truly dominate. And post-2018 there was always Serral to outclass him. Other questions to think about: Can someone, who was never the greatest over the period of 11 years be the Greatest of all Time, simply for the fact that he was at but not on the very top for 11 years? Or can someone who played at the top, although never being the best, for 5 years and staying behind another player for the remainder of the time be the GOAT? In my opinion, the answer is a clear no. If people want to deny Serral the GOAT title for not playing in the peak era, neither Maru nor Rogue should be considered as GOAT either, as most of their dominance was in the same time span. If we assume that winning a world championship title also is needed at least once, INnoVation falls flat as well and your next best bet would be either Zest (who won an IEM World Championship before the end of WCS) or sOs (who won WCS 2x and IEM once), with Zest amassing more overall titles in a similar timeframe, but sOs claiming the more prestigious ones.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax. And to be honest, I always wondered, why this era-argument is only played into one direction. Because pulling the UNO-reverse-card, it can also be argued that the 2015 players simply didn’t stand out among their peers the way Serral does, as well as not having the ability to stay relevant in later eras. As explained above, yes, it was harder to amass many Premier Tournaments titles, but win rates are a good factor to compare eras. And many players who played in all eras (Dark, herO, ByuN, etc.) have more or less the same win rates (Sometimes even higher in the time surrounding 2015). The good players persisted and Serral consistently had to play through the all-time greats since his rise. The mechanical level nowadays is arguably higher than it has ever been, which can give the impression that yes, the 2015 was more competetive, but that a lot of WoL-players simply weren’t made for the insane level of skill that was required in 2018 and following to stay relevant. It also has to be noted, that Serral achieved all of this without the help of teamhouses. To quote PartinG: “When we put our heads together, it always ends up in better builds. You can never get that practicing alone at home.”Or as NesTea puts it: “Teamwork is our strongest weapon. Foreign players don’t get team support at this level. I understand it is not a system that can easily be mimicked.” Korean pro-gamers often take a step back in their school efforts or don’t even finish high school at all. And this is understandable, when you imagine staying at a teamhouse and playing for at least 12 hours a day, as NesTea once explained. Incredible Miracle players back then started their days at around 11am and then practiced from 2pm to 2am. How could such a lifestyle possibly be coupled with going to school? Maru and Serral are roughly the same age. Maru joined Prime at the age of 13 in 2010, a couple of months after the release of Wings of Liberty. That means in 8 years leading up to Maru and Serral becoming the most dominant players the game has ever seen, Maru had the full support and guidance of a professional team including a teamhouse in the most dominant region StarCraft 2 had to offer. Serral was part of different teams since 2012 but contrary to many Korean pros, he stayed in school and only took StarCraft 2 seriously after finishing it mid 2017. The rest is history.
To finish this discussion I want to entertain the utterly hypothetical that Serral was born in Korea. Having the full support of a teamhouse and pro team starting from his early teen years. Would he have won Premier Tournaments like Maru early on? We cannot know, but considering his rapid rise after finishing school, which he achieved even without this kind of support, it is at least highly probable that he would have played at the very top. Continuing into 2018 and later - given the win rates he sports (which as I explained above are deflated in comparison to Koreans due to him only playing the top) - I think it is safe to assume that he would have at least won 1 or 2 GSLs pre 2021 as well as taking titles of other GOAT contenders.
A quick summary: Serral is the most dominant player this game has ever seen as this data analysis shows, even when controlling for massive era handicaps on several levels. Serral is consistently the best of the game since 7 years/nearly half of the game’s existence. He is the most efficient and holds every important record/ is the best at all major metrics that a GOAT discussion is offering. He achieved these metrics by having heavy penalties put against him and - at least in my opinion - the counterarguments to him being GOAT aren’t convincing if they are critically dissected and analyzed. You are all free to disagree.
It was a lot of hard work of several months gathering the data and writing this piece. If you find errors, please let me know and I will edit the article accordingly with time stamps of editing, leaving the formerly wrong notions visible.
RotterdaM said in the BASILISK vs Shopify Rebellion Match commentary that there is one StarCraft fan from Germany who likes to write and doesn't think that Serral is the GOAT. Well, here you have another German Starcraft fan who thinks that the numbers tell you very clearly that Serral is the GOAT.
I hope you enjoyed reading this piece as much as I had a good time writing it and I will try to answer questions to the best of my ability, although it will be tough to come back to all replies, regarding the controversial nature of the topic.
Congratulations to Serral for being the greatest StarCraft 2 player of all time!
Posts like these really highlight why MVP is the true GOAT of SC2. It takes 10,000 words to make an argument about Serral, but there's a widespread consensus that MVP lapped the field during WoL. All this GOAT discussion back-and-forth ironically only proves that no player right now is dominant enough to take the crown.
On July 21 2024 23:11 Monochromatic wrote: Posts like these really highlight why MVP is the true GOAT of SC2. It takes 10,000 words to make an argument about Serral, but there's a widespread consensus that MVP lapped the field during WoL. All this GOAT discussion back-and-forth ironically only proves that no player right now is dominant enough to take the crown.
Well, the data disagrees with you. All of Serral's years are better in match win rates than Mvp's and Serral's best year is better than Mvp's percentage-wise.
Also your logic is flawed: Only because people are cognitively dissonant about Serral's dominance, does not mean that it isn't real and measurable
On July 21 2024 23:31 WombaT wrote: Interesting read just scanning it here, but is it just me or are none of the images displaying?
I wasn't able to make it work.. loaded all screenshots up to Imgur and put the link in the img brackets, but somehow it doesn't work. The post is also on reddit though!
EDIT: I figured it out... I should have used the full, not the image link
On July 21 2024 23:49 Waxangel wrote: I'm amused that the Mizenhauer series turned the GOAT argument from an occasional enthusiast topic into something people REALLY like to talk about
What is funny about this, is the fact, that I started to write this piece around New Year's 2023. But then I moved to another city, founded a second business and every time I wanted to finish it, something else came up and the data was in need of an update. Then Miz released his list. This really got me motivated to finish mine, as I saw so many inconsistencies and too much subjectivity, which in my opinion made no sense. It really gave me the final push to sit this one through and release it.
And I agree... I love these discussions, theory-crafting and "wasting time" researching and debating such topics. It's awesome
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
On July 22 2024 01:29 Mizenhauer wrote: No Mvp, no goat list.
He is mentioned multiple times and his abnormal year of 2011 was highlighted. But if I have the time, I might think about adding all the data for him, as this shouldn't take too long looking at his rather short career
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG (and Classic too, forgot him) took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
The thing is that this argument simply is put into motion as people sometimes claim that Serral can't be the GOAT as he never played near 2015. As you said, these player's lost motivation and it probably was a mix of some of them getting somewhat worse and others who were more hungry, had more spirit and more motivation popping up.
But these players weren't chumps. Some of them were former world champions, the rest ultra high tier players... and even if their win rates dropped by 5% collectively, which it didn't... Serral's win rate gap is simply too big for this to matter. He had an (not corrected for lower tier players) win rate of 85% against new talent as well as seasoned veterans. This highly suggests that he would have fared quite well in this era, if he hadn't such stupid cultural norms like school to attend to, which the Korean player did not. I am simply painting a picture to weaken the claim that Serral cannot be GOAT as he never played in 2015. His phenomenal results against players from that era - even if they were not their perfect former selfs - simply dismantles the era counterclaim.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
In a sense, minus players impacted notably by injury like Taeja, that is kind of on those players though. I mean I realise I just throw out the ‘other side of the coin’ arguments perpetually in this domain, but it Serral gets a few minus points for the era he’s in and the drop off, then surely you have to take points off all those players who couldn’t keep up their peak levels?
Byun is a patch Terran :p
Agreed on SoS for sure. Less so perhaps with soO although I can see it to be fair: partly given his biggest result was in Legacy, partly given how strong he is mechanically and how fast Legacy is and how demanding in that capacity.
I think soO is a player who’s waxed and waned a bit with Legacy metas, whereas $o$ it’s the game itself that didn’t suit him.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
The thing is that this argument simply is put into motion as people sometimes claim that Serral can't be the GOAT as he never played near 2015. As you said, these player's lost motivation and it probably was a mix of some of them getting somewhat worse and others who were more hungry, had more spirit and more motivation popping up.
But these players weren't chumps. They were former world champion and even if their win rates dropped by 5% collectively, which it didn't... Serral's win rate gap is simply too big for this to matter. He had an (not corrected for lower tier players) win rate of 85% against new talent as well as seasoned veterans. This highly suggests that he would have fared quite well in this era, if he hadn't such stupid cultural norms like school to attend to, which the Korean player did not. I am simply painting a picture to weaken the claim that Serral cannot be GOAT as he never played in 2015. His phenomenal results against players from that era - even if they were not their perfect former selfs - simply dismantles the era counterclaim.
Well I think it's a legitimate argument to make (and the only legitimate argument against him being the Goat - if Serral achieved his current results in 2015 we wouldn't be discussing). I agree that Serral has the best case for being the Goat now though
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
The thing is that this argument simply is put into motion as people sometimes claim that Serral can't be the GOAT as he never played near 2015. As you said, these player's lost motivation and it probably was a mix of some of them getting somewhat worse and others who were more hungry, had more spirit and more motivation popping up.
But these players weren't chumps. They were former world champion and even if their win rates dropped by 5% collectively, which it didn't... Serral's win rate gap is simply too big for this to matter. He had an (not corrected for lower tier players) win rate of 85% against new talent as well as seasoned veterans. This highly suggests that he would have fared quite well in this era, if he hadn't such stupid cultural norms like school to attend to, which the Korean player did not. I am simply painting a picture to weaken the claim that Serral cannot be GOAT as he never played in 2015. His phenomenal results against players from that era - even if they were not their perfect former selfs - simply dismantles the era counterclaim.
Well I think it's a legitimate argument to make (and the only legitimate argument against him being the Goat - if Serral achieved his current results in 2015 we wouldn't be discussing). I agree that Serral has the best case for being the Goat now though
True about him having his results in 2015 already, that there'd be no discussion (well perhaps Miz would throw in a coin for Mvp still ) But I'd also say that his "late start" can be a little counterclaim, although this one is perfectly explained by him finishing school and then starting to dominate everything for seven straight years.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
In a sense, minus players impacted notably by injury like Taeja, that is kind of on those players though. I mean I realise I just throw out the ‘other side of the coin’ arguments perpetually in this domain, but it Serral gets a few minus points for the era he’s in and the drop off, then surely you have to take points off all those players who couldn’t keep up their peak levels?
Byun is a patch Terran :p
Agreed on SoS for sure. Less so perhaps with soO although I can see it to be fair: partly given his biggest result was in Legacy, partly given how strong he is mechanically and how fast Legacy is and how demanding in that capacity.
I think soO is a player who’s waxed and waned a bit with Legacy metas, whereas $o$ it’s the game itself that didn’t suit him.
Yeah, it's on the players. The problem is that due to lack of new talent there's nobody who takes the spots as top championship contenders of declined soO/Inno, making tournaments objectively easier to win.
Regarding soO I just think that his big weakness (lategame and spellcaster control) is something HotS Zerg could get away with but definitely not LotV Zerg. I know he won IEM Katowice but that was more of a flash in the pan result compared to his consistent excellence in HotS
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
In a sense, minus players impacted notably by injury like Taeja, that is kind of on those players though. I mean I realise I just throw out the ‘other side of the coin’ arguments perpetually in this domain, but it Serral gets a few minus points for the era he’s in and the drop off, then surely you have to take points off all those players who couldn’t keep up their peak levels?
Byun is a patch Terran :p
Agreed on SoS for sure. Less so perhaps with soO although I can see it to be fair: partly given his biggest result was in Legacy, partly given how strong he is mechanically and how fast Legacy is and how demanding in that capacity.
I think soO is a player who’s waxed and waned a bit with Legacy metas, whereas $o$ it’s the game itself that didn’t suit him.
Yeah, it's on the players. The problem is that due to lack of new talent there's nobody who takes the spots as top championship contenders of declined soO/Inno, making tournaments objectively easier to win.
Regarding soO I just think that his big weakness (lategame and spellcaster control) is something HotS Zerg could get away with but definitely not LotV Zerg. I know he won IEM Katowice but that was more of a flash in the pan result compared to his consistent excellence in HotS
Well, there is Serral 2018, Dark 2019, Rogue 2020, Reynor 2021, Serral a 2nd time in 2022 and Oliveira 2023. That is 6 world champions for 7 years, a similar rate to WCSs 2017 and before with 5 champions in 6 years. Plus, you got MaxPax who only plays online, Clem who is getting better and better. Maru wins a lot, but herO, Shin, Solar, GuMiho, Cure, Bunny and Zest all pop up in Premier Tournaments as winner or runner up in the last two years. In my opinion we saw a lot new talent (MaxPax, Clem, Reynor, Serral) to replace them, as well as veterans still going strong or becoming even stronger (Oliveira, Maru, GuMiho, Shin, Cure, hero, Solar). As a matter of fact, one talent and one veteran that are extreme outliers. The thrones of Premier Tournaments would be much more fought for, if those two didn't exist. But in my opinion that isn't an issue of new talent (as Serral is the new talent post-2018) but simply a matter of dominance portrayed by Maru and Serral.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
In a sense, minus players impacted notably by injury like Taeja, that is kind of on those players though. I mean I realise I just throw out the ‘other side of the coin’ arguments perpetually in this domain, but it Serral gets a few minus points for the era he’s in and the drop off, then surely you have to take points off all those players who couldn’t keep up their peak levels?
Byun is a patch Terran :p
Agreed on SoS for sure. Less so perhaps with soO although I can see it to be fair: partly given his biggest result was in Legacy, partly given how strong he is mechanically and how fast Legacy is and how demanding in that capacity.
I think soO is a player who’s waxed and waned a bit with Legacy metas, whereas $o$ it’s the game itself that didn’t suit him.
Yeah, it's on the players. The problem is that due to lack of new talent there's nobody who takes the spots as top championship contenders of declined soO/Inno, making tournaments objectively easier to win.
Regarding soO I just think that his big weakness (lategame and spellcaster control) is something HotS Zerg could get away with but definitely not LotV Zerg. I know he won IEM Katowice but that was more of a flash in the pan result compared to his consistent excellence in HotS
Well, there is Serral 2018, Dark 2019, Rogue 2020, Reynor 2021, Serral a 2nd time in 2022 and Oliveira 2023. That is 6 world champions for 7 years, a similar rate to WCSs 2017 and before with 5 champions in 6 years. Plus, you got MaxPax who only plays online, Clem who is getting better and better. Maru wins a lot, but herO, Shin, Solar, GuMiho, Cure, Bunny and Zest all pop up in Premier Tournaments as winner or runner up in the last two years. In my opinion we saw a lot new talent (MaxPax, Clem, Reynor, Serral) to replace them, as well as veterans still going strong or becoming even stronger (Oliveira, Maru, GuMiho, Shin, Cure, hero, Solar). As a matter of fact, one talent and one veteran that are extreme outliers. The thrones of Premier Tournaments would be much more fought for, if those two didn't exist. But in my opinion that isn't an issue of new talent (as Serral is the new talent post-2018) but simply a matter of dominance portrayed by Maru and Serral.
In terms of serious championship contenders: Today: Serral, Reynor, Clem, Maru, Dark, herO Everyone else you would be extremely surprised to see win -I wouldn't include Oliveira, because he only ever won 1 premier tournament in 1 finals appearance (otherwise you could also include Flash etc in the 2015 list).
2015: PartinG, Rain, Classic, Zest, sOs, herO, Maru, Inno, soO, Life, ByuL None of them would've been a big surprise to win a big tournament.
In terms of 2nd tier players who could cause an upset to the top contenders the gap would be even bigger
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
In a sense, minus players impacted notably by injury like Taeja, that is kind of on those players though. I mean I realise I just throw out the ‘other side of the coin’ arguments perpetually in this domain, but it Serral gets a few minus points for the era he’s in and the drop off, then surely you have to take points off all those players who couldn’t keep up their peak levels?
Byun is a patch Terran :p
Agreed on SoS for sure. Less so perhaps with soO although I can see it to be fair: partly given his biggest result was in Legacy, partly given how strong he is mechanically and how fast Legacy is and how demanding in that capacity.
I think soO is a player who’s waxed and waned a bit with Legacy metas, whereas $o$ it’s the game itself that didn’t suit him.
Yeah, it's on the players. The problem is that due to lack of new talent there's nobody who takes the spots as top championship contenders of declined soO/Inno, making tournaments objectively easier to win.
Regarding soO I just think that his big weakness (lategame and spellcaster control) is something HotS Zerg could get away with but definitely not LotV Zerg. I know he won IEM Katowice but that was more of a flash in the pan result compared to his consistent excellence in HotS
Well, there is Serral 2018, Dark 2019, Rogue 2020, Reynor 2021, Serral a 2nd time in 2022 and Oliveira 2023. That is 6 world champions for 7 years, a similar rate to WCSs 2017 and before with 5 champions in 6 years. Plus, you got MaxPax who only plays online, Clem who is getting better and better. Maru wins a lot, but herO, Shin, Solar, GuMiho, Cure, Bunny and Zest all pop up in Premier Tournaments as winner or runner up in the last two years. In my opinion we saw a lot new talent (MaxPax, Clem, Reynor, Serral) to replace them, as well as veterans still going strong or becoming even stronger (Oliveira, Maru, GuMiho, Shin, Cure, hero, Solar). As a matter of fact, one talent and one veteran that are extreme outliers. The thrones of Premier Tournaments would be much more fought for, if those two didn't exist. But in my opinion that isn't an issue of new talent (as Serral is the new talent post-2018) but simply a matter of dominance portrayed by Maru and Serral.
In terms of serious championship contenders: Today: Serral, Reynor, Clem, Maru, Dark, herO Everyone else you would be extremely surprised to see win -I wouldn't include Oliveira, because he only ever won 1 premier tournament in 1 finals appearance (otherwise you could also include Flash etc in the 2015 list).
2015: PartinG, Rain, Classic, Zest, sOs, herO, Maru, Inno, soO, Life, ByuL None of them would've been a big surprise to win a big tournament.
In terms of 2nd tier players who could cause an upset to the top contenders the gap would be even bigger
Agreed on Oliveira. It is just something to point out though. That there are still players who are able to penetrate through Serral and Maru AND on top all the other high tier contenders. GumiHo had 2 runner ups last year, Cure 3. If you add MaxPax who only falls away because of him not playing offline, you get pretty similar numbers. At least if you compare it to the image people paint of that era where you could get the idea that nowadays no players are left in the StarCraft 2 scene
I don’t disagree with the results, but I am still one of those people that removes 3 years of results in my head from when Zerg was so broken in LoTV. I’m honestly surprised any Protoss besides Trap kept playing the game. And to be fair, he had to endure the highest level beat downs of anybody.
Thanks for the great post OP. I love the effort and data.
It would be nice to see how much one should handicap and penalize Serral using these same metrics to actually make Serral/Maru appear numerically dead-even, thought I suspect that even the most hardcore nostalgia-driven Korean Elitist Maru Fanboi couldn't agree with such absurd weightings, as they would effectively render the analysis meaningless and only offer an upside-down view to the same ridiculousness of Serral's dominance that is apparent already.
It's clear why leaving Reynor/Clem/ vs foreigner -part out from Serral's body of work is fitting and easy simplification for analytic purposes in this context, but nobody can really evaluate Serral's "GOATNESS" without it, as intangibles directly or indirectly relating to it are also important factor why so many consider him as The Goat. We can call it "growing the scene" or "Let's singlehandedly extend the longevity of the competitive SC2 scene at it's highest levels" -factor, for examples, as innumerable as it ever can be. Handicapping this aspect of Serral's resume to nul feels most arbitrarily unfair aspect of this analysis, much more than heavily undervaluing era/tournaments etc. of Serral's career of full time Pro.
On July 22 2024 04:52 UnLarva wrote: Excellent and highly commendable work! o7
It would be nice to see how much one should handicap and penalize Serral using these same metrics to actually make Serral/Maru appear numerically dead-even, thought I suspect that even the most hardcore nostalgia-driven Korean Elitist Maru Fanboi couldn't agree with such absurd weightings, as they would effectively render the analysis meaningless and only offer an upside-down view to the same ridiculousness of Serral's dominance that is apparent already.
It's clear why leaving Reynor/Clem/ vs foreigner -part out from Serral's body of work is fitting and easy simplification for analytic purposes in this context, but nobody can really evaluate Serral's "GOATNESS" without it, as intangibles directly or indirectly relating to it are also important factor why so many consider him as The Goat. We can call it "growing the scene" or "Let's singlehandedly extend the longevity of the competitive SC2 scene at it's highest levels" -factor, for examples, as innumerable as it ever can be. Handicapping this aspect of Serral's resume to nul feels most arbitrarily unfair aspect of this analysis, much more than heavily undervaluing era/tournaments etc. of Serral's career of full time Pro.
Anyway, great job, man!
You have a point! At the moment I am pretty done with working on this, but getting these guys in the bigger picture might seem like a worthwhile idea (perhaps without having to analyze each tournament they won/placed 2nd as that was the most work... I think I am now able to grab a tournaments value by simply looking at the structure and players pretty well after all this).
Making Maru dead-even, except for the tournament score, would take ridiculous nerfs especially in the Aligulac Rank Analysis, Hall of Fame, as well as match win rates and tournament win rate. I can look at this superficially in a couple of weeks if you want.
On July 22 2024 01:29 Mizenhauer wrote: No Mvp, no goat list.
I had some time, so I evaluated Mvp's data:
1. His Aligulac ranking went as expected. He was 106 lists in the top 10. Around 30 times less than Serral was on rank 1. But when he was in the top 10, he was on rank 1 71,30% - the best score after Serral. This is countered by his low representation in the top 10, with only 84 times, the second lowest score.
2. On the Aligulac HoF he is placed 8th, which gives him the number 4 spot on the list. His PP score versus INnoVation, Maru and Serral is pretty bad though.
3. Mvp's overall match win rate is 52,38%, by a large margin the lowest score. His best year wouldn't even put him in the top 5 years, as Serral's and Maru's best years are better.
4. 2011 saves him a 2nd place in the Tournament win rate analysis. But if he had continued like in 2012 and 2013 he would have dropped down to last place as well in 2014.
5. Average place also sees him in the last place, as 2012 and 2013, drag his hyper successful year 2011 down.
6. As it is obvious by simply counting that Mvp can't win in the tournament score and I was too lazy to actually calculate all the tournaments he participated in, I simply gave him a tournament multiplier of 1 for each placement (massively boosting his score), except his world championship, which of course was multiplied with 1,1. He still has the lowest tournament score.
7. Efficiency-wise he is placed 3rd behind Serral and Maru, as 2011 is his only year where he collected many points, which in relation made his efficiency go down. This score is also boosted as it is a dividend of the tournament score.
Mvp is the player with the least consistency and duration and the trend implies that more years would have simply made his statistics look worse. He only has 1 hyper dominant year, which is not even the best year in this whole comparison and he sports match win rates of under 50% (2012), 38% (2013) and 31% (2014) . It is safe to say that my pre-screening was correct in not letting him in the final contender list.
On July 22 2024 01:29 Mizenhauer wrote: No Mvp, no goat list.
I had some time, so I evaluated Mvp's data:
1. His Aligulac ranking went as expected. He was 106 lists in the top 10. Around 30 times less than Serral was on rank 1. But when he was in the top 10, he was on rank 1 71,30% - the best score after Serral. This is countered by his low representation in the top 10, with only 84 times, the second lowest score.
2. On the Aligulac HoF he is placed 8th, which gives him the number 4 spot on the list. His PP score versus INnoVation, Maru and Serral is pretty bad though.
3. Mvp's overall match win rate is 52,38%, by a large margin the lowest score. His best year wouldn't even put him in the top 5 years, as Serral's and Maru's best years are better.
4. 2011 saves him a 2nd place in the Tournament win rate analysis. But if he had continued like in 2012 and 2013 he would have dropped down to last place as well in 2014.
5. Average place also sees him in the last place, as 2012 and 2013, drag his hyper successful year 2011 down.
6. As it is obvious by simply counting that Mvp can't win in the tournament score and I was too lazy to actually calculate all the tournaments he participated in, I simply gave him a tournament multiplier of 1 for each placement (massively boosting his score), except his world championship, which of course was multiplied with 1,1. He still has the lowest tournament score.
7. Efficiency-wise he is placed 3rd behind Serral and Maru, as 2011 is his only year where he collected many points, which in relation made his efficiency go down. This score is also boosted as it is a dividend of the tournament score.
Mvp is the player with the least consistency and duration and the trend implies that more years would have simply made his statistics look worse. He only has 1 hyper dominant year, which is not even the best year in this whole comparison and he sports match win rates of under 50% (2012), 38% (2013) and 31% (2014) . It is safe to say that my pre-screening was correct in not letting him in the final contender list.
Data alone cannot express the greatness of Mvp. That intangible kind of greatness that one feels in the heart, or possibly balls.
That said I mean has Serral ever had a sub-70% win rate year since 17/18? Serral’s basically managed that for a ridiculous amount of time. Longer than Mvp’s entire career, hell at this stage longer than the entirety of WoL and HoTS combined.
Enjoy the TL+, albeit I fucked up and awarded it to the wrong post :p
On July 22 2024 01:29 Mizenhauer wrote: No Mvp, no goat list.
I had some time, so I evaluated Mvp's data:
1. His Aligulac ranking went as expected. He was 106 lists in the top 10. Around 30 times less than Serral was on rank 1. But when he was in the top 10, he was on rank 1 71,30% - the best score after Serral. This is countered by his low representation in the top 10, with only 84 times, the second lowest score.
2. On the Aligulac HoF he is placed 8th, which gives him the number 4 spot on the list. His PP score versus INnoVation, Maru and Serral is pretty bad though.
3. Mvp's overall match win rate is 52,38%, by a large margin the lowest score. His best year wouldn't even put him in the top 5 years, as Serral's and Maru's best years are better.
4. 2011 saves him a 2nd place in the Tournament win rate analysis. But if he had continued like in 2012 and 2013 he would have dropped down to last place as well in 2014.
5. Average place also sees him in the last place, as 2012 and 2013, drag his hyper successful year 2011 down.
6. As it is obvious by simply counting that Mvp can't win in the tournament score and I was too lazy to actually calculate all the tournaments he participated in, I simply gave him a tournament multiplier of 1 for each placement (massively boosting his score), except his world championship, which of course was multiplied with 1,1. He still has the lowest tournament score.
7. Efficiency-wise he is placed 3rd behind Serral and Maru, as 2011 is his only year where he collected many points, which in relation made his efficiency go down. This score is also boosted as it is a dividend of the tournament score.
Mvp is the player with the least consistency and duration and the trend implies that more years would have simply made his statistics look worse. He only has 1 hyper dominant year, which is not even the best year in this whole comparison and he sports match win rates of under 50% (2012), 38% (2013) and 31% (2014) . It is safe to say that my pre-screening was correct in not letting him in the final contender list.
Data alone cannot express the greatness of Mvp. That intangible kind of greatness that one feels in the heart, or possibly balls.
That said I mean has Serral ever had a sub-70% win rate year since 17/18? Serral’s basically managed that for a ridiculous amount of time. Longer than Mvp’s entire career, hell at this stage longer than the entirety of WoL and HoTS combined.
Enjoy the TL+, albeit I fucked up and awarded it to the wrong post :p
I utterly feel you... that is exactly why this list was necessary for me. We all suffer from biases, subjective ideas and certainties that can very fast turn to uncertainties. But learning that you were wrong about something is always a great thing... as now you are wrong about one less thing :D
And to answer your question: These are Serral's win rates since 2018: 85,71 76,67 85,71 70,31 73,68 85,11 92,31 Mind you, only against the top Koreans of the world.
Wow I'm really surprised Rogue pales so heavily when it comes to the metric of how many times he was ranked #1, #2, or #3 on aligulac compared to the other top 4. I knew how he hit "above his skill level", but damn i didn't think it was that drastic. It's really incredible how many premiers and WCs he won despite that. That is a big part of what makes him great too. I also think the players you chose to examine for the list was great, the cutoff is perfect at those 4 players.
Aligulac PP and stuff is cool too, gonna check it out.
Thanks for all the hard work!! It was an enjoyable read, and I like how it often considered counter arguments, and overall it was very logically written and unbiased. It's incredible how handicapped Serral was in your measurements, yet he still came out #1 (or tied for #1) in all 7 categories.
I would love to see who the top 10 would be given your methodology, I wonder if you would be able to give a rough list off of what you remember or if you'd have to do a lot more research. I'm especially curious about how Taeja, Life, sOs, and MVP would compare.
On July 22 2024 07:17 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow I'm really surprised Rogue pales so heavily when it comes to that metric (times ranked #1, #2, or #3 on aligulac) compared to the other top 4. I knew how he hit "above his skill level", but damn i didn't think it was that drastic. It's really incredible how many premiers and WCs he won despite that. That is a big part of what makes him great too.
Aligulac PP and stuff is cool too, gonna check it out.
Thanks for all the hard work!! It was an enjoyable read, and I like how it often considered counter arguments, and overall it was very logically written and unbiased. It's incredible how handicapped Serral was in your measurements, yet he still came out #1 (or tied for #1) in all 7 categories.
I would love to see who the top 10 would be given your methodology, I wonder if you would be able to give a rough list off of what you remember or if you'd have to do a lot more research. I'm especially curious about how Taeja, Life, sOs, and MVP would compare.
That surprised me as well...
Mvp's statistics are explained in my answer to Mizenhauer somewhere in this thread... I will do Life next, when I have the time, although I probably won't go as deep into the tournament analysis as grinding out those Ro16 and Ro8 was an absurdly time-consuming task and a real pain in the ass.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
On July 22 2024 07:17 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Wow I'm really surprised Rogue pales so heavily when it comes to the metric of how many times he was ranked #1, #2, or #3 on aligulac compared to the other top 4. I knew how he hit "above his skill level", but damn i didn't think it was that drastic. It's really incredible how many premiers and WCs he won despite that. That is a big part of what makes him great too. I also think the players you chose to examine for the list was great, the cutoff is perfect at those 4 players.
Aligulac PP and stuff is cool too, gonna check it out.
Thanks for all the hard work!! It was an enjoyable read, and I like how it often considered counter arguments, and overall it was very logically written and unbiased. It's incredible how handicapped Serral was in your measurements, yet he still came out #1 (or tied for #1) in all 7 categories.
I would love to see who the top 10 would be given your methodology, I wonder if you would be able to give a rough list off of what you remember or if you'd have to do a lot more research. I'm especially curious about how Taeja, Life, sOs, and MVP would compare.
He (Rogue) didn't particularly rise above his skill level though? It's mainly that he was a big tournament player, and not an aligulac stat padder like other players
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
That argument of the supposed peak in skill of someone does not make sense. In a game/sport based only on 1 vs 1 confrontation you can just compare players using their results as data. There is no correlation between numbers of competitors and skill. More than that, I would say that continuously training made the players raw skill great with the time passing (trying to clarify: if we had a time machine and we took a middle of the pack player of today and, for example, MVP from 2011, the latter would be destroyed because of the way better knowledge of the have of the former). So the only data we should take into account when comparing players should be their results (probably weighted on the importance of tourneys from which that results came) not the year in which that results were achieved.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
I am heavily inclined to believe that your proposal (although again you are not being serious about it, I presume) of portraying Has as GOAT in objective metrics is not possible. I analyzed the metrics that show important qualities of a GOAT the most. Would it make Has a GOAT contender if he was the best... I don't know... the best cannon rusher in the history of the game? Or that he was the best at playing StarCraft 2 with one hand strapped to his back? No, of course not. I contemplated 7 metrics that show consistency, dominance and efficiency. What other qualities do you think a GOAT needs of not these? And which metrics would you further include to measure them, if these 7 don't satisfy you? In my opinion you are displaying a hyper-skeptic attitude or even an incredulity fallacy, as the evidence that is presented is overwhelming. But I am open to criticism... thus please tell me what kind of metric it is, that you are possibly missing here.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
That argument of the supposed peak in skill of someone does not make sense. In a game/sport based only on 1 vs 1 confrontation you can just compare players using their results as data. There is no correlation between numbers of competitors and skill. More than that, I would say that continuously training made the players raw skill great with the time passing (trying to clarify: if we had a time machine and we took a middle of the pack player of today and, for example, MVP from 2011, the latter would be destroyed because of the way better knowledge of the have of the former). So the only data we should take into account when comparing players should be their results (probably weighted on the importance of tourneys from which that results came) not the year in which that results were achieved.
That is my point too. Further, looking at careers, most players have gotten better over time in their strategy and understanding of their sport. Most hit their peaks in athleticism from mid to late 20s. Except for injuries or motivation, there is simply no reason to assume anything else that would drop skill.
Actually, as I am thinking about it right now... one could compare the win rates of the 2015-era-players among themselves in 2015 and 2018. If they are stable and only the win rates versus the new talent is dropping their match win rates, it is obvious, that the new guys simply were better than the old ones. But if a given players goes down versus both groups, it is him who lost skill either through demotivation or perhaps injury. This might be a future project.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A purely statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less because it isn't the whole picture.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
Playing the game right now, it feels freaking "snowbally" in terms of macro, and I think it would be torture to play it without all the rapid fire tweaks and stuff. Having a good setup is becoming more important than before. But yeah playing versus zerg on larger maps feels like hell if you want to be "active", and if you like babysitting units type of games there aren't many maps where you can do that anymore
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
So the data to suggest this fiasco you are portraying, is prize money earned, did I understand you correctly?
I might not even agree that prep-tournmanets are harder, but (and I know that doesn't help the core issue) they are simply a different quality of hard. Anything else you raise are more or less valid points (except the notion about barely new talent coming in... it simply isn't coming as much from Korea as in the past, where GSL is played and the NesTea award is handed out) but each of them can be discussed on their impact on the metrics. You make it seem like all data simply is superfluous and arbitrary, to which I heavily disagree. In the end, these matter the most: 1. Are the race win rates in an area of 45-55% most of the time? 2. Are there measurable differences between players? 3. Can these differences be compared by adding context and factors? 4. Even if we disagree on factors: is the end result the same? And in my opinion all 4 questions can be answered with yes.
That is not to say that your concerns are not valid.. I simply don't think that they are that important. In the end, the best and most dominant player will win the most tournaments given that #1 is true.
We could also argue that Scarlett was the best player in the world in 2014 when was in the top 10 because we know that she never had the support of team houses or the million dollar machine of Korean pros in the background... we just have to stop somewhere. All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and that treating the numbers as absolute is ridiculous.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
Mvp was also dominant in periods where nobody really knew how to play the game properly.
This actually places him pretty highly for me, as in a strategy game, being ahead of the curve conceptually rather than merely a good executor of cumulative ideas weighs quite strongly for me.
The longer an activity goes on the more innovators tend to be underrated over those who took those ideas and executed better.
Mvp’s greatness for me was solidified best when he lost his mechanical advantage and still made, and almost won a GSL final. That kind of intangible, hard to define greatness.
But sometimes the numbers are the numbers. Serral’s held a 70% win rate for a span that’s years longer than Mvp’s entire career
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
You're lowering the value of Maru's first GSL win because NoRegret qualified? In MVP's first GSL win, Choya got Top 8... the skill level of most SC2 players in 2011 was not very high. Just look at all the GSL players who qualified and quickly faded away or failed to qualify again. I would say that's a sign that the players qualifying were at a low level, than to say that the field was very deep and competitive. There's a clear gap between the players who knew how to play a decent macro game, like MVP and Nestea, and players like Choya, InCa, and whoever the heck jookTo is.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
You're lowering the value of Maru's first GSL win because NoRegret qualified? In MVP's first GSL win, Choya got Top 8... the skill level of most SC2 players in 2011 was not very high. Just look at all the GSL players who qualified and quickly faded away or failed to qualify again. I would say that's a sign that the players qualifying were at a low level, than to say that the field was very deep and competitive. There's a clear gap between the players who knew how to play a decent macro game, like MVP and Nestea, and players like Choya, InCa, and whoever the heck jookTo is.
You see...
I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
That argument of the supposed peak in skill of someone does not make sense. In a game/sport based only on 1 vs 1 confrontation you can just compare players using their results as data. There is no correlation between numbers of competitors and skill. More than that, I would say that continuously training made the players raw skill great with the time passing (trying to clarify: if we had a time machine and we took a middle of the pack player of today and, for example, MVP from 2011, the latter would be destroyed because of the way better knowledge of the have of the former). So the only data we should take into account when comparing players should be their results (probably weighted on the importance of tourneys from which that results came) not the year in which that results were achieved.
So you think Soulkey winning an ASL in 2024 is worth the same as someone winning an OSL/MSL in 2010? Or Happy winning the biggest WC3 tournament in 2024 compared to someone winning the biggest tournament in 2008.
Competitiveness of the scene has to matter, otherwise you punish those who peaked when it was harder to win tournaments, when there were way more full time players and professionalized scene
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and that treating the numbers as absolute is ridiculous.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
Mvp was also dominant in periods where nobody really knew how to play the game properly.
This actually places him pretty highly for me, as in a strategy game, being ahead of the curve conceptually rather than merely a good executor of cumulative ideas weighs quite strongly for me.
The longer an activity goes on the more innovators tend to be underrated over those who took those ideas and executed better.
Mvp’s greatness for me was solidified best when he lost his mechanical advantage and still made, and almost won a GSL final. That kind of intangible, hard to define greatness.
But sometimes the numbers are the numbers. Serral’s held a 70% win rate for a span that’s years longer than Mvp’s entire career
Stephano is underrated in the GOAT discussion then. He was mechanically incredible, and was wayyy ahead of the curve strategically / meta game wise at some points. I remember playing versus MiniRazer one or two years after playing Stephano, and felt like this guy was a worse copy of Stephano… far later The guy was doing runbyes versus terrans like Kas (in his prime AND when Terran was strong on shitty maps) and toying with his units to create stuff and find solutions, before they it was mainstream
Sure, nowadays he is nowhere near a top 15 GOAT
But imo during Stuchiu list of top 15 GOAT, he was worthy of being in it more than some KR players
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
TY was still ranked 3 near the end of 2018. INno took ranks of Serral at times and was still ranked 2 mid 2020. His win rates still exceeded 60%. Zest had similar win rates to his prime when facing Serral, the same is true for PartinG. Why exactly do you think they got worse and not that the new talents simply were better which dropped these players win rates, tournament rates and overall glow like it was always the case? The bulk of the players you mentioned did not drop in skill because of old age. For most, their 2018-versions - from my estimation - would have easily kicked the asses of their 2015-versions, if I look at gameplay and strategy.
Plus, I never made the claim that "Serral would beat these players at their peak". I simply stated that he beat players that were already around in the 2015-era.
Well, I can prove "they got worse" just as little as you can prove "they didn't get worse, others just surpassed them." But I think it's rather unlikely that the number of serious championship contenders decreasing at the same time as the competitiveness of the scene decreasing is a mere coincidence. Also looking specifically at the players I mentioned Inno was rather vocal about losing motivation and practicing less, TaeJa and PartinG took a long break from sc2 and never really caught up after that, for sOs and soO I think LotV never resonated with their strengths (hard to directly compare skill when they are playing a completely different game now). For Zest and ByuN it's less clear but their gameplay just didn't convince me as much anymore as when they were in their peak.
If your claim wasn't that Serral would beat these players at their peak I'm not sure what the point in mentioning that he's beating them now is. As I see it it has no relevance on the argument
In a sense, minus players impacted notably by injury like Taeja, that is kind of on those players though. I mean I realise I just throw out the ‘other side of the coin’ arguments perpetually in this domain, but it Serral gets a few minus points for the era he’s in and the drop off, then surely you have to take points off all those players who couldn’t keep up their peak levels?
Byun is a patch Terran :p
Agreed on SoS for sure. Less so perhaps with soO although I can see it to be fair: partly given his biggest result was in Legacy, partly given how strong he is mechanically and how fast Legacy is and how demanding in that capacity.
I think soO is a player who’s waxed and waned a bit with Legacy metas, whereas $o$ it’s the game itself that didn’t suit him.
Yeah, it's on the players. The problem is that due to lack of new talent there's nobody who takes the spots as top championship contenders of declined soO/Inno, making tournaments objectively easier to win.
Regarding soO I just think that his big weakness (lategame and spellcaster control) is something HotS Zerg could get away with but definitely not LotV Zerg. I know he won IEM Katowice but that was more of a flash in the pan result compared to his consistent excellence in HotS
Well, there is Serral 2018, Dark 2019, Rogue 2020, Reynor 2021, Serral a 2nd time in 2022 and Oliveira 2023. That is 6 world champions for 7 years, a similar rate to WCSs 2017 and before with 5 champions in 6 years. Plus, you got MaxPax who only plays online, Clem who is getting better and better. Maru wins a lot, but herO, Shin, Solar, GuMiho, Cure, Bunny and Zest all pop up in Premier Tournaments as winner or runner up in the last two years. In my opinion we saw a lot new talent (MaxPax, Clem, Reynor, Serral) to replace them, as well as veterans still going strong or becoming even stronger (Oliveira, Maru, GuMiho, Shin, Cure, hero, Solar). As a matter of fact, one talent and one veteran that are extreme outliers. The thrones of Premier Tournaments would be much more fought for, if those two didn't exist. But in my opinion that isn't an issue of new talent (as Serral is the new talent post-2018) but simply a matter of dominance portrayed by Maru and Serral.
In terms of serious championship contenders: Today: Serral, Reynor, Clem, Maru, Dark, herO Everyone else you would be extremely surprised to see win -I wouldn't include Oliveira, because he only ever won 1 premier tournament in 1 finals appearance (otherwise you could also include Flash etc in the 2015 list).
2015: PartinG, Rain, Classic, Zest, sOs, herO, Maru, Inno, soO, Life, ByuL None of them would've been a big surprise to win a big tournament.
In terms of 2nd tier players who could cause an upset to the top contenders the gap would be even bigger
I think Rogue is getting there again hopefully (in terms of players you would not be surprised to see win)
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
You're lowering the value of Maru's first GSL win because NoRegret qualified? In MVP's first GSL win, Choya got Top 8... the skill level of most SC2 players in 2011 was not very high. Just look at all the GSL players who qualified and quickly faded away or failed to qualify again. I would say that's a sign that the players qualifying were at a low level, than to say that the field was very deep and competitive. There's a clear gap between the players who knew how to play a decent macro game, like MVP and Nestea, and players like Choya, InCa, and whoever the heck jookTo is.
"Macro game" is an outdated term / not precise enough lol. It's more about "playstyle" and how you like to play the game -> you can start with cheesy strats and it can evolve into a macro game. Is being good at playing "macro games" that start weird (ie. changing timings) better or worse than being good at the "macro games" that start with "macro builds" / passive strats (fast CC or whatever is "meta")? Similarly, when zerg had an utterly broken / OP composition (ie. broodlord infestor), the game in TvZ was often about the terran trying to find a way to kill the zerg before he got to that compo, while the zerg tried to survive / "get there" for his win condition. The that were players "good" at getting there, but worse in other compartiments of the game (for example being in the driver seat, or whatever), were they less skillfull than those who thrived in chaos/creating game?
All in all, different eras / patchs (extensions) rewarded different skill sets. If you think Choya / InCa / jookTo were bad players / not skilled, you are being naïve imho. Or you simply weren't around / following GSL + other tourneys during that era, because those guys were actually strong.
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
That argument of the supposed peak in skill of someone does not make sense. In a game/sport based only on 1 vs 1 confrontation you can just compare players using their results as data. There is no correlation between numbers of competitors and skill. More than that, I would say that continuously training made the players raw skill great with the time passing (trying to clarify: if we had a time machine and we took a middle of the pack player of today and, for example, MVP from 2011, the latter would be destroyed because of the way better knowledge of the have of the former). So the only data we should take into account when comparing players should be their results (probably weighted on the importance of tourneys from which that results came) not the year in which that results were achieved.
So you think Soulkey winning an ASL in 2024 is worth the same as someone winning an OSL/MSL in 2010? Or Happy winning the biggest WC3 tournament in 2024 compared to someone winning the biggest tournament in 2008.
Competitiveness of the scene has to matter, otherwise you punish those who peaked when it was harder to win tournaments, when there were way more full time players and professionalized scene
I don't follow BW nor WC3 to be able to answer your question. Defining the competitiveness of a scene could be the harder thing to do in the kind of analysis i have proposed. I would relate the competitiveness of an era to something like the prize pool per premier tourney. I have the feeling that prize pool per premier tourney nowaday is the highest it has ever been (because there are lesser tourneys but still some of them have very high prize pool) so I would rate today competitiveness of the scene to be at its higher because players have very few occasion to get the very important cheques. To be more clear I would say that in 2024 Katowice or Riyadh masters will be way more important in the legacy of a player than any number of GSL (won in this year).
But in my opinion, this whole reasoning is ludicrous to begin with. As stated above, Serral played many of the best the 2015-era had to offer. 3x World Champion sOs, 1x World Champion Zest, 3x World Champion Rogue, 1x World Champion PartinG, 1x World Champion TY, Classic, TaeJa, Trap, Creator, soO as well as INnoVation. Serral is still is battling World Champions ByuN, and Dark as well as herO, Cure, Stats, Solar and Maru on a regular basis who all were relevant in 2015 already. On top, Serral was able to fend of new talents such as World Champion Reynor or Clem and MaxPax.
And how many of those were in their peak when they faced Serral? The versions of sOs, PartinG, TaeJa, Zest, ByuN, INnoVation and soO that Serral faced were nowhere near their peak. That's like taking Serrals negative record against Dayshi and Jaedong as an argument.
Yeah, Serral is the most dominant player ever and probably has the best case to be the Goat due to no player really sticking out during the most competitive period but you can't derive from him beating players way past their peak that he would beat them at their peak too, that argument makes 0 sense.
That argument of the supposed peak in skill of someone does not make sense. In a game/sport based only on 1 vs 1 confrontation you can just compare players using their results as data. There is no correlation between numbers of competitors and skill. More than that, I would say that continuously training made the players raw skill great with the time passing (trying to clarify: if we had a time machine and we took a middle of the pack player of today and, for example, MVP from 2011, the latter would be destroyed because of the way better knowledge of the have of the former). So the only data we should take into account when comparing players should be their results (probably weighted on the importance of tourneys from which that results came) not the year in which that results were achieved.
So you think Soulkey winning an ASL in 2024 is worth the same as someone winning an OSL/MSL in 2010? Or Happy winning the biggest WC3 tournament in 2024 compared to someone winning the biggest tournament in 2008.
Competitiveness of the scene has to matter, otherwise you punish those who peaked when it was harder to win tournaments, when there were way more full time players and professionalized scene
I don't follow BW nor WC3 to be able to answer your question. Defining the competitiveness of a scene could be the harder thing to do in the kind of analysis i have proposed. I would relate the competitiveness of an era to something like the prize pool per premier tourney. I have the feeling that prize pool per premier tourney nowaday is the highest it has ever been (because there are lesser tourneys but still some of them have very high prize pool) so I would rate today competitiveness of the scene to be at its higher because players have very few occasion to get the very important cheques. To be more clear I would say that in 2024 Katowice or Riyadh masters will be way more important in the legacy of a player than any number of GSL (won in this year).
Saudi blood money being parachuted into the scene doesn't suddenly make the scene more competitive. That's a ridiculous take.
On July 22 2024 20:17 MJG wrote: You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
This is blatantly untrue and is addressed at length in Premo's post. How about you try reading it before starting arguments in the comments?
On July 22 2024 20:17 MJG wrote: You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
This is blatantly untrue and is addressed at length in Premo's post. How about you try reading it before starting arguments in the comments?
I did read it.
He hasn't done it.
Not what I'm talking about anyway.
Maybe you're the one who needs to read posts before starting arguments?
In regards to winrate comparisons I'd be curious to see the comparisons done by # of series instead of calendar year. I have no doubt Serral still comes out on top but I'm pretty sure it would close the gaps considerably. In 2018 for example Serral had his crazy 86% series winrate against Koreans but he only played 28 series total. I would wonder what's Maru's peak 28 series winrate.
It'd be a pain to gather that though. I think it would be a more honest comparison because Serral's vs Korea series winrate is inflated for some of those years due to only having to play a small number of series that mostly happened in EU or at world championships which he is always peaking for. He never had to play any Koreans during his rare slumps because he usually skipped the closest global events during those times.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
You're lowering the value of Maru's first GSL win because NoRegret qualified? In MVP's first GSL win, Choya got Top 8... the skill level of most SC2 players in 2011 was not very high. Just look at all the GSL players who qualified and quickly faded away or failed to qualify again. I would say that's a sign that the players qualifying were at a low level, than to say that the field was very deep and competitive. There's a clear gap between the players who knew how to play a decent macro game, like MVP and Nestea, and players like Choya, InCa, and whoever the heck jookTo is.
"Macro game" is an outdated term / not precise enough lol. It's more about "playstyle" and how you like to play the game -> you can start with cheesy strats and it can evolve into a macro game. Is being good at playing "macro games" that start weird (ie. changing timings) better or worse than being good at the "macro games" that start with "macro builds" / passive strats (fast CC or whatever is "meta")? Similarly, when zerg had an utterly broken / OP composition (ie. broodlord infestor), the game in TvZ was often about the terran trying to find a way to kill the zerg before he got to that compo, while the zerg tried to survive / "get there" for his win condition. The that were players "good" at getting there, but worse in other compartiments of the game (for example being in the driver seat, or whatever), were they less skillfull than those who thrived in chaos/creating game?
All in all, different eras / patchs (extensions) rewarded different skill sets. If you think Choya / InCa / jookTo were bad players / not skilled, you are being naïve imho. Or you simply weren't around / following GSL + other tourneys during that era, because those guys were actually strong.
Macro game is a very reasonable term.
In WoL, there ended up not being many good aggressive openers, especially once the maps figured out how to be more standard and stable. Terrans would open with the same hellion banshee all the time and be pretty much completely safe in TvZ, they would open with a 1/1/1 or expo into 1/1/1 in TvT and as long as they got their tanks up and split and vikings up they'd be safe vs all harass. There was often not much happening til players started trying to get 3rd bases.
If you knew how to play macro and not lose to 1 base plays or early harass builds, then you were ahead.
Choya was not at all strong. He was maybe decent for a couple seasons but quickly fell off. Like most players.
It's really tiring hearing people say "you weren't around back then / didn't watch the scene closely" just cus you have a different opinion.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
I didn't account for any of that? I assumed all things to be equal across all eras and expansions? I gave all tournaments pre-2015 in placements, average place and tournament win rate a 50% buff. Efficiency score also directly is affected by that decision. This buff is utterly over the top and it still didn't put anyone close to Serral. In not a single metric. On top of that, GSLs till 2020 are the best rated tournaments, directly behind World Championships, which is another thing I accounted for.
As I said before: We can put a lot of random questions to the GOAT debate and we can discuss each and every one (give buffs to foreigners as they didn't have multi million dollar industry behind them, give penalties to players who were only able to dominate a very short time, give creativity points to Mvp). We can add all kinds of irrelevant and random factors to this list. All of that does not alter the big picture. Why? Because all you do with it is shift percentage points from one side to the other. It does not matter, as two players stand out massively and even if you give unreasonable buffs to everyone else, their statistics cannot be touched.
If you say that I can't answer the GOAT debate through data alone: What is missing? Who is on the table and why? And just to be clear about one thing: There is an extensive section that talks about subjective influence. So it should be obvious, that I did not only consider data.
On July 22 2024 15:23 MJG wrote: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything”.
Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
You're lowering the value of Maru's first GSL win because NoRegret qualified? In MVP's first GSL win, Choya got Top 8... the skill level of most SC2 players in 2011 was not very high. Just look at all the GSL players who qualified and quickly faded away or failed to qualify again. I would say that's a sign that the players qualifying were at a low level, than to say that the field was very deep and competitive. There's a clear gap between the players who knew how to play a decent macro game, like MVP and Nestea, and players like Choya, InCa, and whoever the heck jookTo is.
"Macro game" is an outdated term / not precise enough lol. It's more about "playstyle" and how you like to play the game -> you can start with cheesy strats and it can evolve into a macro game. Is being good at playing "macro games" that start weird (ie. changing timings) better or worse than being good at the "macro games" that start with "macro builds" / passive strats (fast CC or whatever is "meta")? Similarly, when zerg had an utterly broken / OP composition (ie. broodlord infestor), the game in TvZ was often about the terran trying to find a way to kill the zerg before he got to that compo, while the zerg tried to survive / "get there" for his win condition. The that were players "good" at getting there, but worse in other compartiments of the game (for example being in the driver seat, or whatever), were they less skillfull than those who thrived in chaos/creating game?
All in all, different eras / patchs (extensions) rewarded different skill sets. If you think Choya / InCa / jookTo were bad players / not skilled, you are being naïve imho. Or you simply weren't around / following GSL + other tourneys during that era, because those guys were actually strong.
Macro game is a very reasonable term.
In WoL, there ended up not being many good aggressive openers, especially once the maps figured out how to be more standard and stable. Terrans would open with the same hellion banshee all the time and be pretty much completely safe in TvZ, they would open with a 1/1/1 or expo into 1/1/1 in TvT and as long as they got their tanks up and split and vikings up they'd be safe vs all harass. There was often not much happening til players started trying to get 3rd bases.
If you knew how to play macro and not lose to 1 base plays or early harass builds, then you were ahead.
Choya was not at all strong. He was maybe decent for a couple seasons but quickly fell off. Like most players.
It's really tiring hearing people say "you weren't around back then / didn't watch the scene closely" just cus you have a different opinion.
Then define strong? Bomber STRUGGLED for a long time to have good results in GSL / tournaments but he was known to be a monster in practice / ladder etc. Does that mean he wasn’t strong when his results were good? I am not saying Choya was the strongest sc2 player back then but dismissing is skill is a bit disrespectful / naive. FireCake was pretty « bad » / unsuccessful at Super Smash Bros Melee prior to playing sc2/WoL, but he managed to get decent results in StarCraft 2. Sometimes it’s about form / motivation or whatever.
All in all my point is mainly that you can’t dismiss a tournament results because you think InCa reaching a finals + you think InCa is bad means the whole tournament is invalid
Context matters a lot ; and InCa was strong in that particular tournament You didn’t get to the finals of a GSL / ro8 by luck alone
I am a long time StarCraft 2 fan and have a background in critical thinking as I was part of many debate clubs
Potent "I took a few undergraduate courses in philosophy" energy.
Nah, I'm a dentist But I love dissecting topics and critical thinking.
Oh, that explains a lot! That's why you can "torture" statistics so effectively and carefully that some comments here seems to me like some people would be throwing statistical approach out altogether. Needless to say that without stats this whole topic is just an aetheric smell of anesthetics in a lobby of a dentist's practice, scent that cannot cover desperate screams behind the door of operating room: "No, noooooooo! Aaaaaaargh! Noooo!"
If the data of player achievements is a bread and statistics are the teeth for eating that bread, one cannot do that without the teeth. Hardly even speak on the topic, in any rational, logical, critical, or meaningful ways. That apply over whole data set, like a mold spreading over that bread. Solf, easier to digest, yeah.
I am a long time StarCraft 2 fan and have a background in critical thinking as I was part of many debate clubs
Potent "I took a few undergraduate courses in philosophy" energy.
Nah, I'm a dentist But I love dissecting topics and critical thinking.
Since you seem to be fairly active in this thread, may I ask if you thought at any point that aligulac could be skewed? I'm looking at this part of your discussion:
1. Serral has occupied either Rank 1 or 2 since Dec 2017/List 2023 when he claimed rank 1 for the first time (he only lost it on list 369 and 370 due to the start of his military service where a break in playing signed him as inactive).
2. Maru lost rank 2 in that same time frame to several people including Dark, Reynor, Clem and MaxPax.
Serral won his first premier event in Jan 2018, then got top 8 at iem, and then won his second premier event (both european esls) in June 2018. You saw all this data. You don't see anything wrong with a player jumping to no1/2 without winning premier events?
The maru point follows a similar pattern, streaky reynor overtakes maru, so does clem, and so does maxpax, a player who has never won a premier event in his whole career.
Your statistical analysis highlights a giant hole in aligulac's rating system, yet I don't see this mentioned anywhere (if you already addressed this I apologize)
On July 22 2024 20:17 MJG wrote: You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
This is blatantly untrue and is addressed at length in Premo's post. How about you try reading it before starting arguments in the comments?
I did read it.
He hasn't done it.
Not what I'm talking about anyway.
Maybe you're the one who needs to read posts before starting arguments?
Well, akshually, the absurd degree to which he weighted eras and tournament types is where he did exactly what you're talking about
I am a long time StarCraft 2 fan and have a background in critical thinking as I was part of many debate clubs
Potent "I took a few undergraduate courses in philosophy" energy.
Nah, I'm a dentist But I love dissecting topics and critical thinking.
Since you seem to be fairly active in this thread, may I ask if you thought at any point that aligulac could be skewed? I'm looking at this part of your discussion:
1. Serral has occupied either Rank 1 or 2 since Dec 2017/List 2023 when he claimed rank 1 for the first time (he only lost it on list 369 and 370 due to the start of his military service where a break in playing signed him as inactive).
2. Maru lost rank 2 in that same time frame to several people including Dark, Reynor, Clem and MaxPax.
Serral won his first premier event in Jan 2018, then got top 8 at iem, and then won his second premier event (both european esls) in June 2018. You saw all this data. You don't see anything wrong with a player jumping to no1/2 without winning premier events?
The maru point follows a similar pattern, streaky reynor overtakes maru, so does clem, and so does maxpax, a player who has never won a premier event in his whole career.
Your statistical analysis highlights a giant hole in aligulac's rating system, yet I don't see this mentioned anywhere (if you already addressed this I apologize)
I am honestly not sure if advancements in Premier Tournaments are taken into account.
Thought #1: If Clem drops for example in the semis to Serral (a much higher ranked player than him, thus Clem does not get penalized much), and Maru drops in the finals to Serral (their ranking is closer, thus he gets more penalty in relation), they both lost 1 time in the tournament, but it could be that Maru loses more points. The same is true if Clem wins against Serral or Maru. Add to that.. Thought #2: If Clem plays more majors where he faces Reynor or MaxPax than Maru plays them at all, Clem could boost his rating by not winning Premier Tournaments, as he still beats highly rated players. This idea would require aligulac majors, which I do not know it does.
But this is a good point, that I honestly didn't catch. I'll look into it.
On July 22 2024 15:29 PremoBeats wrote: [quote] Not sure how serious your comment is, but in which of my 7 metrics that were analyzed did you see me "torture data"?
Did you read the article? Did you understand that the data regarding the person which came out on top was penalized pr "tortured" the most? By far?
That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
You're lowering the value of Maru's first GSL win because NoRegret qualified? In MVP's first GSL win, Choya got Top 8... the skill level of most SC2 players in 2011 was not very high. Just look at all the GSL players who qualified and quickly faded away or failed to qualify again. I would say that's a sign that the players qualifying were at a low level, than to say that the field was very deep and competitive. There's a clear gap between the players who knew how to play a decent macro game, like MVP and Nestea, and players like Choya, InCa, and whoever the heck jookTo is.
"Macro game" is an outdated term / not precise enough lol. It's more about "playstyle" and how you like to play the game -> you can start with cheesy strats and it can evolve into a macro game. Is being good at playing "macro games" that start weird (ie. changing timings) better or worse than being good at the "macro games" that start with "macro builds" / passive strats (fast CC or whatever is "meta")? Similarly, when zerg had an utterly broken / OP composition (ie. broodlord infestor), the game in TvZ was often about the terran trying to find a way to kill the zerg before he got to that compo, while the zerg tried to survive / "get there" for his win condition. The that were players "good" at getting there, but worse in other compartiments of the game (for example being in the driver seat, or whatever), were they less skillfull than those who thrived in chaos/creating game?
All in all, different eras / patchs (extensions) rewarded different skill sets. If you think Choya / InCa / jookTo were bad players / not skilled, you are being naïve imho. Or you simply weren't around / following GSL + other tourneys during that era, because those guys were actually strong.
Macro game is a very reasonable term.
In WoL, there ended up not being many good aggressive openers, especially once the maps figured out how to be more standard and stable. Terrans would open with the same hellion banshee all the time and be pretty much completely safe in TvZ, they would open with a 1/1/1 or expo into 1/1/1 in TvT and as long as they got their tanks up and split and vikings up they'd be safe vs all harass. There was often not much happening til players started trying to get 3rd bases.
If you knew how to play macro and not lose to 1 base plays or early harass builds, then you were ahead.
Choya was not at all strong. He was maybe decent for a couple seasons but quickly fell off. Like most players.
It's really tiring hearing people say "you weren't around back then / didn't watch the scene closely" just cus you have a different opinion.
Then define strong? Bomber STRUGGLED for a long time to have good results in GSL / tournaments but he was known to be a monster in practice / ladder etc. Does that mean he wasn’t strong when his results were good? I am not saying Choya was the strongest sc2 player back then but dismissing is skill is a bit disrespectful / naive. FireCake was pretty « bad » / unsuccessful at Super Smash Bros Melee prior to playing sc2/WoL, but he managed to get decent results in StarCraft 2. Sometimes it’s about form / motivation or whatever.
All in all my point is mainly that you can’t dismiss a tournament results because you think InCa reaching a finals + you think InCa is bad means the whole tournament is invalid
Context matters a lot ; and InCa was strong in that particular tournament You didn’t get to the finals of a GSL / ro8 by luck alone
Look, I'm not the one being dismissive. You're missing the context of my point. Someone suggested that Maru's GSL win might not have meant much if NoRegret managed to qualify. Choya isn't a shining example of a GSL player either and he made Ro8 which is considered an impressive placement.
If you think that we shouldn't dismiss MVP's win when players like Choya can get Ro8 then i hope you'd agree we shouldn't dismiss the strength of GSL when Maru won with NoRegret qualifying.
My stance is that the level of competition may have decreased a bit over time, but GSL was still very competitive around 2017-2018 and only started falling off a little from 2018-2019 onwards, and then sharply declining the last couple years. Players in 2017-2018 were still pretty much in their peak forms and shouldn't be considered to be weaker than their 2015 selves. Maybe in 2018 they were slightly slightly weaker, but it's not like they fell off so hard that Serral dominating them means nothing in terms of whether he'd be able to beat their 2015 selves if he was fulltime in 2015.
There are no contextual weightings in Aligulac ratings (other than what people may include to it, winks). It is always player vs player -mode, by default. That gives the best resolution available.
A rating of a player is always (and only) measured by his/her opponent's rating. Nothing more, nothing less. That is why it is as objective as rating systems come. It measure only a player strength vs other as it is, regardless of circumstances, or context.
Biggest problem with Aligulac is (and always has been) the objectivity and equality of inclusion of 'data worthy' input.
For GOAT (of now) candidates this is not a problem, but generally there exists one hell of 'inclusion bias'. System needed already much more volunteers in during heydays of the this all. Now, when everything but the Skill, and competition following from that is ever highest levels, the documentation level and pressure to do so is in it's lowest.
Regardless of that, no matter how low levels of volunteer participation have gone, we can be sure that at the top, things are properly taken in account, and we can be sure that no man hours put to the infernal and toily process of inclusion of missing data over the whole historical existence can ever change the overall picture.
Statistics happen only after the fact(s), not before them.
Nothing of this can change the facts, even measured by Aligulac. A measurement is just as good as it's input. For top GOAT contenders it is nearly perfect.
On July 22 2024 15:56 MJG wrote: [quote] That's exactly the point, you only analysed seven metrics! I'm sure I could find seven metrics that would give Has as the correct answer if I tried hard enough!
I was being facetious and I thought it was pretty obvious...
No amount of statistical analysis is likely to change my opinion that Legacy of the Void is a balance/design shitshow. It's the videogaming equivalent of getting 100m sprinters to wear clown shoes. Fun and entertaining? Sure. Provides useful data for measuring accomplishments? Definitely not.
Why would you say that LotV is a balance shitshow? What exactly do you mean by it? There is extensive data about balancing out there.... but as you said: You seem to have pre-formed opinion that isn't likely to change.
Luckily for me, I've already posted about Legacy of the Void's design problems elsewhere, so I'll quote it here:
We had two versions of the game where a general overview of Starcraft 2 strategy would tell us that Zerg is the race that benefits most from being able to take faster expansions, from having larger maps, from having more open maps, and from the game being less "deathbally". Legacy of the Void was specifically designed so that we need to take faster expansions, so that the maps are generally larger, so that the maps are generally more open, and so that the game is significantly less "deathbally". Zerg has gone on to win more money than any other race in Legacy of the Void. This is going to read as balance whine, but I don't think it's a balance issue. No amount of tweaking unit stats is going to make a significant difference to core design flaws that result from Blizzard's decision to move to a 12 worker start and fewer minerals per base...
EDIT:
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared?
How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days?
How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less.
All things are influenced by contexts, but that does not mean, that they are less real or immeasurable.
You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
Mvp is an obvious example where handwaving away all the subjective context is silly. Mvp was dominant in a time period were simply reaching GSL was a massive achievement, and new stars were frequently bursting onto the scene. In comparison, Maru's first GSL win was in a tournament that NoRegret qualified for. Not to dunk too hard on NoRegret, but those are not comparable data sets, and I'm sure there are lots of examples of other data sets that don't deserve to be taken into equal consideration. I'm also sure that every one of those examples is going to be incredibly subjective.
So torture the data all you like, you can't answer the GOAT question through data alone.
You're lowering the value of Maru's first GSL win because NoRegret qualified? In MVP's first GSL win, Choya got Top 8... the skill level of most SC2 players in 2011 was not very high. Just look at all the GSL players who qualified and quickly faded away or failed to qualify again. I would say that's a sign that the players qualifying were at a low level, than to say that the field was very deep and competitive. There's a clear gap between the players who knew how to play a decent macro game, like MVP and Nestea, and players like Choya, InCa, and whoever the heck jookTo is.
"Macro game" is an outdated term / not precise enough lol. It's more about "playstyle" and how you like to play the game -> you can start with cheesy strats and it can evolve into a macro game. Is being good at playing "macro games" that start weird (ie. changing timings) better or worse than being good at the "macro games" that start with "macro builds" / passive strats (fast CC or whatever is "meta")? Similarly, when zerg had an utterly broken / OP composition (ie. broodlord infestor), the game in TvZ was often about the terran trying to find a way to kill the zerg before he got to that compo, while the zerg tried to survive / "get there" for his win condition. The that were players "good" at getting there, but worse in other compartiments of the game (for example being in the driver seat, or whatever), were they less skillfull than those who thrived in chaos/creating game?
All in all, different eras / patchs (extensions) rewarded different skill sets. If you think Choya / InCa / jookTo were bad players / not skilled, you are being naïve imho. Or you simply weren't around / following GSL + other tourneys during that era, because those guys were actually strong.
Macro game is a very reasonable term.
In WoL, there ended up not being many good aggressive openers, especially once the maps figured out how to be more standard and stable. Terrans would open with the same hellion banshee all the time and be pretty much completely safe in TvZ, they would open with a 1/1/1 or expo into 1/1/1 in TvT and as long as they got their tanks up and split and vikings up they'd be safe vs all harass. There was often not much happening til players started trying to get 3rd bases.
If you knew how to play macro and not lose to 1 base plays or early harass builds, then you were ahead.
Choya was not at all strong. He was maybe decent for a couple seasons but quickly fell off. Like most players.
It's really tiring hearing people say "you weren't around back then / didn't watch the scene closely" just cus you have a different opinion.
Then define strong? Bomber STRUGGLED for a long time to have good results in GSL / tournaments but he was known to be a monster in practice / ladder etc. Does that mean he wasn’t strong when his results were good? I am not saying Choya was the strongest sc2 player back then but dismissing is skill is a bit disrespectful / naive. FireCake was pretty « bad » / unsuccessful at Super Smash Bros Melee prior to playing sc2/WoL, but he managed to get decent results in StarCraft 2. Sometimes it’s about form / motivation or whatever.
All in all my point is mainly that you can’t dismiss a tournament results because you think InCa reaching a finals + you think InCa is bad means the whole tournament is invalid
Context matters a lot ; and InCa was strong in that particular tournament You didn’t get to the finals of a GSL / ro8 by luck alone
Look, I'm not the one being dismissive. You're missing the context of my point. Someone suggested that Maru's GSL win might not have meant much if NoRegret managed to qualify. Choya isn't a shining example of a GSL player either and he made Ro8 which is considered an impressive placement.
If you think that we shouldn't dismiss MVP's win when players like Choya can get Ro8 then i hope you'd agree we shouldn't dismiss the strength of GSL when Maru won with NoRegret qualifying.
My stance is that the level of competition may have decreased a bit over time, but GSL was still very competitive around 2017-2018 and only started falling off a little from 2018-2019 onwards, and then sharply declining the last couple years. Players in 2017-2018 were still pretty much in their peak forms and shouldn't be considered to be weaker than their 2015 selves. Maybe in 2018 they were slightly slightly weaker, but it's not like they fell off so hard that Serral dominating them means nothing in terms of whether he'd be able to beat their 2015 selves if he was fulltime in 2015.
I agree on the history etc, but sometimes being full time doesn’t allow a player to shine. We can estimate what Serral could have achieved, but it’s difficult to really know. We don’t have a clear answer for sc2, albeit we have strong candidates
On July 23 2024 05:40 UnLarva wrote: There are no contextual weightings in Aligulac ratings (other than what people may include to it, winks). It is always player vs player -mode, by default. That gives the best resolution available.
A rating of a player is always (and only) measured by his/her opponent's rating. Nothing more, nothing less. That is why it is as objective as rating systems come. It measure only a player strength vs other as it is, regardless of circumstances, or context.
Biggest problem with Aligulac is (and always has been) the objectivity and equality of inclusion of 'data worthy' input.
For GOAT (of now) candidates this is not a problem, but generally there exists one hell of 'inclusion bias'. System needed already much more volunteers in during heydays of the this all. Now, when everything but the Skill, and competition following from that is ever highest levels, the documentation level and pressure to do so is in it's lowest.
Regardless of that, no matter how low levels of volunteer participation have gone, we can be sure that at the top, things are properly taken in account, and we can be sure that no man hours put to the infernal and toily process of inclusion of missing data over the whole historical existence can ever change the overall picture.
Statistics happen only after the fact(s), not before them.
Nothing of this can change the facts, even measured by Aligulac. A measurement is just as good as it's input. For top GOAT contenders it is nearly perfect.
Well this is just not true. Aligulac is pretty imperfect, exactly because it doesn't account for setting. Are you really hanging your hat on serral being top 1,2 in the world in 2017, really? Or maxpax being top 2 at any point during his career? Because this is where aligulac's "objectivity" leads us. Aligulac ratings are close to useless, by themselves, in goat discussions.
On July 23 2024 05:40 UnLarva wrote: There are no contextual weightings in Aligulac ratings (other than what people may include to it, winks). It is always player vs player -mode, by default. That gives the best resolution available.
A rating of a player is always (and only) measured by his/her opponent's rating. Nothing more, nothing less. That is why it is as objective as rating systems come. It measure only a player strength vs other as it is, regardless of circumstances, or context.
Biggest problem with Aligulac is (and always has been) the objectivity and equality of inclusion of 'data worthy' input.
For GOAT (of now) candidates this is not a problem, but generally there exists one hell of 'inclusion bias'. System needed already much more volunteers in during heydays of the this all. Now, when everything but the Skill, and competition following from that is ever highest levels, the documentation level and pressure to do so is in it's lowest.
Regardless of that, no matter how low levels of volunteer participation have gone, we can be sure that at the top, things are properly taken in account, and we can be sure that no man hours put to the infernal and toily process of inclusion of missing data over the whole historical existence can ever change the overall picture.
Statistics happen only after the fact(s), not before them.
Nothing of this can change the facts, even measured by Aligulac. A measurement is just as good as it's input. For top GOAT contenders it is nearly perfect.
Well this is just not true. Aligulac is pretty imperfect, exactly because it doesn't account for setting. Are you really hanging your hat on serral being top 1,2 in the world in 2017, really? Or maxpax being top 2 at any point during his career? Because this is where aligulac's "objectivity" leads us. Aligulac ratings are close to useless, by themselves, in goat discussions.
Useless? Why? For the GOAT a particular setting SHOULD be irrelevant. Like, by default (per tl.net and reddit and all)
As long as MaxPax doesn't appear and carry his person offline with the cheering crowd he can never be even a GOAT contender, even if he beat other goats 100-0 in other contexts. That, as measured by Aligulac, doesn't diminish his skill.
Critics against Aligulac are the same the OP of this thread must suffer. Without your teeth you cannot chew.
On July 22 2024 20:17 MJG wrote: You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
This is blatantly untrue and is addressed at length in Premo's post. How about you try reading it before starting arguments in the comments?
I did read it.
He hasn't done it.
Not what I'm talking about anyway.
Maybe you're the one who needs to read posts before starting arguments?
Well, akshually, the absurd degree to which he weighted eras and tournament types is where he did exactly what you're talking about
It's really not. Picking a single cut-off point for weighting results isn't nearly what I was getting at. But I'm going to stop discussing this because it's clear that nobody is going to budge, that we're all talking past one another, and that the discourse is getting increasingly bitter...
The irony remains that I don't even know who I consider to be the GOAT. I just know that it's neither of the two most mentioned contenders because I'm just that biased against Legacy of the Void being taken seriously!
On July 23 2024 05:40 UnLarva wrote: There are no contextual weightings in Aligulac ratings (other than what people may include to it, winks). It is always player vs player -mode, by default. That gives the best resolution available.
A rating of a player is always (and only) measured by his/her opponent's rating. Nothing more, nothing less. That is why it is as objective as rating systems come. It measure only a player strength vs other as it is, regardless of circumstances, or context.
Biggest problem with Aligulac is (and always has been) the objectivity and equality of inclusion of 'data worthy' input.
For GOAT (of now) candidates this is not a problem, but generally there exists one hell of 'inclusion bias'. System needed already much more volunteers in during heydays of the this all. Now, when everything but the Skill, and competition following from that is ever highest levels, the documentation level and pressure to do so is in it's lowest.
Regardless of that, no matter how low levels of volunteer participation have gone, we can be sure that at the top, things are properly taken in account, and we can be sure that no man hours put to the infernal and toily process of inclusion of missing data over the whole historical existence can ever change the overall picture.
Statistics happen only after the fact(s), not before them.
Nothing of this can change the facts, even measured by Aligulac. A measurement is just as good as it's input. For top GOAT contenders it is nearly perfect.
Well this is just not true. Aligulac is pretty imperfect, exactly because it doesn't account for setting. Are you really hanging your hat on serral being top 1,2 in the world in 2017, really? Or maxpax being top 2 at any point during his career? Because this is where aligulac's "objectivity" leads us. Aligulac ratings are close to useless, by themselves, in goat discussions.
Problems occur when there are years long asymmetry between what really is inclusion-worthy and what is really included (to the data set). For GOAT contenders this is NOT the problem, for many others it is.
Aligulac's metric for the Goats is best resolution for performance you have, measured by real, factual results player vs player matches, day by day. Regardless of circumstances. Period.
I'm definitely sceptical that statistics are capable of telling us who the GOAT is. They can definitely weed out people who shouldn't be in the conversation, but there are so many subjective factors that also deserve to be part of the conversation. Here are some examples:
Well, of course there are subjective matters that affect to the results of this debate. But also that is why it is interesting as well. In addition, statistics in a long run have a huge impact on what or who is greater or greatest of a bunch. Lets try to have a go at few of these claims for the sake of the debate.
On July 22 2024 17:08 MJG wrote:
How much harder are prep-tournament than weekend-tournaments? How do you factor this into the statistics?
Well this is one of the most interesting points. Prep-tournaments are different that weekenders. But again, based on the statistics and analyzing the gameplay of the best players we can determine that it generally doesnt make a lot of difference about the winrates of a person.
On July 22 2024 17:08 MJG wrote: [*]How much harder are team-leagues when snipers can be prepared? [*]How important are team-league statistics compared to individual-league statistics?
I dont think team-leagues should be given that much of value. Its whole different format after all with different goals.
On July 22 2024 17:08 MJG wrote: [*]How much more pressure does a player feel when playing in the GSL studio than when playing at a LAN?
I dont know how is this any way relevant to the discussion ?
On July 22 2024 17:08 MJG wrote: [*]How much more important than everything else was GSL in the early days? [*]How quickly did the importance of GSL wane with time?
These issues have been discussed to the death and general consensus has been already decided. No need to go through again.
On July 22 2024 17:08 MJG wrote: [*]How important is sustained dominance in a period where barely any new talent is coming through? Does the fact that the NesTea award has been achieved many more times in Legacy of the Void demonstrate that the lack of new talent coming through has made sustained success easier?
Yes, this of course does matter. However this topic too has already been discussed a lot in 10:s of previous threads. It affects some, but in the end there arent countless Marus/Serrals/Clems/Rains/Flashes coming out of new player pools however big they may be. Makes competition harder for sure though.
On July 22 2024 17:08 MJG wrote: [*]How did losing Korean team-houses post-Proleague affect talent development in Korea?
I dont see how this issue has anything to do with the topic.
On July 22 2024 17:08 MJG wrote: [*]How much has balance impacted on win-rates at various points in time? Or game design choices? Or map-pools?
This is maybe the hardest thing to analyze and to add to the results. However, if we have large enough time-window and data to go through, those things dont have that much of an impact overall. As we are talking about time-window of 10+ years and have all the data from these times, the balance/design/map-pools are not that big of an deal in the big picture.
On July 22 2024 17:08 MJG wrote: It's admirable - and I said this about Mizenhauer's attempt as well - that you're trying to only use statistics. But it's ultimately a losing effort when there are so so so so so many subjective factors that should also be considered.
A purely statistical analysis can give Serral or Maru or whoever else as the answer all it wants, I couldn't care less because it isn't the whole picture.
I think its just the other way around; The large amount of time and statistics from every era of gameplay diminish the subjective matters that affect to the equation. If you look at the lists that the OP and Miz have done and still have different opinion, thats okay. However if we want to neutrally determine who might be the best of all time, then the statistics are the ONLY information that you can base your opinions believably. Of course there are things that we cant measure with statistics and are up to debate, but they can never be the central of the discussion, because then we lose the credibility of the matter in hand.
Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
For every serious rating system, the objectivity is the key, there cannot be privileged data points/factors, and if there are, then they apply equally to everyone. Highest resolution will come if a player's rating is always updated after every game he plays. For practical reasons this is seldom possible. Aligulac updates a list after every two weeks period, that gives very good resolution. For 'real time' rating this happens every day.
This particular rating system doesn't weight anything contextual to a match result. A winner win and loser lose, and their ratings are adjusted accordingly, following the set rules and logic (openly declared from the beginning) to take account 3 different races in the game. These rules apply to everyone. The system is build so that, your only way to improve your rating is to perform better than your expected result (math, uh, oh math, declared openly though).
For all out-of-system purposes and agendas it is useful to know that there are no difference between a random weekly tournament match between Caracalla2 vs Umphteen and Katowice 202X Maru vs Serral Final, as they equally measure a player in a given circumstances.
What is generally considered the weakness and fault of the Aligulac system, is it's biggest strength. Only player vs player result have impact to the rating of player.
Both Serral and Maru have been measured by the system over their entire careers using same criteria and logic, with exceptionally high level of data inclusion and volunteerism to do that for both.
Aligulac definitely has major issues that were clear even before Serral was rated highly on it. Anyone who played outside of Korea was very overrated. Look at someone like Polt, he won super tournament in 2011 but besides that was a middle of the road KR player usually eliminated pretty early. He leaves KR and dominated the NA scene and he is top 5 on aligulac for ages and I believe even hit #1 a few times. I don't believe Polt was ever the #1 or even a top 3 player and I don't think that's a controversial take.
Another good and even more extreme example is King Kong. He made it all the way top 3 in late 2013 by nigh exclusively beating up on SEA and AUS players. He had basically no games played against the actual best players in the world but he was so dominant in his home region aligulac named him the 3rd best player in the world. In actual skill I guarantee King Kong was literally never even top 50 in the entire history of SC2 and most people haven't even heard of him. If that doesn't show how flawed aligulac is I don't know what will.
All that to say at this point in time Serral would without a doubt be the top player in any objective rating system. Both in current and likely in overall time spent as #1. However he would not have hit #1 in 2017 and would not have spent most of 2018 as #1 and his overall time spent as #1 would be a lot lower. That was pure rating inflation due to beating up on players worse than him. The first time he hit #1 his winrate vs Koreans was in the 40% range for the few months leading up to it. His winrate has continued to be inflated particularly in the years that had 3 EU regionals with 8 player round robin groups. If you put Maru in a serral-less EU regional group with round robin 3 times per year his aligulac would jump significantly.
Aligulac ratings are internally self-regulating. No matter how high can someone climb, it needs only someone lower rated to 're-normalize' it by winning a match, or two, or three.
With enough big sample sets everything will be set to show the real strength of a player. More accurately more bigger sample, irrespective to a context.
In Serral's case, there haven't yet occurred a situation were someone can really make a dent to his rating. Biggest dent by individual competition was made by Clem few years ago.
The system's logic is that, unless you're really better than the rest, you cannot just dominate the scene half of the game's existence without real skill. Measured by the Aligulac rating (rating inflation included).
On July 23 2024 06:03 UnLarva wrote: Useless? Why? For the GOAT a particular setting SHOULD be irrelevant. Like, by default (per tl.net and reddit and all)
As long as MaxPax doesn't appear and carry his person offline with the cheering crowd he can never be even a GOAT contender, even if he beat other goats 100-0 in other contexts. That, as measured by Aligulac, doesn't diminish his skill.
Critics against Aligulac are the same the OP of this thread must suffer. Without your teeth you cannot chew.
If I understood your initial point correctly, maxpax not appearing in offline events matters little. Aligulac rates him super high, exemplified by him passing maru in no.2 several times. Keep that up for years and, based on your initial assessment, you'd have to put in the goat list. Otherwise you're doing the same thing that supposedly cannot be done: contextualize the data instead of just taking it as is.
Are you gonna answer the other problem with aligulac as applied to serral: top 1 or 2 since 2017, prior to him winning any premier events, or should I just assume you view this as fine. You can't complain that people present their opinions just because they disagree with you.
On July 23 2024 06:03 UnLarva wrote: Useless? Why? For the GOAT a particular setting SHOULD be irrelevant. Like, by default (per tl.net and reddit and all)
As long as MaxPax doesn't appear and carry his person offline with the cheering crowd he can never be even a GOAT contender, even if he beat other goats 100-0 in other contexts. That, as measured by Aligulac, doesn't diminish his skill.
Critics against Aligulac are the same the OP of this thread must suffer. Without your teeth you cannot chew.
If I understood your initial point correctly, maxpax not appearing in offline events matters little. Aligulac rates him super high, exemplified by him passing maru in no.2 several times. Keep that up for years and, based on your initial assessment, you'd have to put in the goat list. Otherwise you're doing the same thing that supposedly cannot be done: contextualize the data instead of just taking it as is.
Are you gonna answer the other problem with aligulac as applied to serral: top 1 or 2 since 2017, prior to him winning any premier events, or should I just assume you view this as fine. You can't complain that people present their opinions just because they disagree with you.
MaxPax has 0 premier tournament victories (offline or online). He can be excluded from the GOAT conversation only by that fact (set by general consensus in these parts), even if he would have several hundreds points better Aligulac rating than the rest.
His rating would still measure his skill objectively, irrespective to the context.
In reverse, Rogue would be the guy respective to the "context".
Added clarification: it's not any a player's fault if their opponent cannot perform enough well to get some rating. But it doesn't generally require an insane rating (relative to peers) to perform in a contexts that really matter. Particularly if talking about a GOAT. Maru cannot be the Goat because he have no World Championship title, and Serral cannot be that because he didn't take a part to The GSL when it really mattered anything.
On July 23 2024 07:16 JJH777 wrote: Aligulac definitely has major issues that were clear even before Serral was rated highly on it. Anyone who played outside of Korea was very overrated. Look at someone like Polt, he won super tournament in 2011 but besides that was a middle of the road KR player usually eliminated pretty early. He leaves KR and dominated the NA scene and he is top 5 on aligulac for ages and I believe even hit #1 a few times. I don't believe Polt was ever the #1 or even a top 3 player and I don't think that's a controversial take.
Another good and even more extreme example is King Kong. He made it all the way top 3 in late 2013 by nigh exclusively beating up on SEA and AUS players. He had basically no games played against the actual best players in the world but he was so dominant in his home region aligulac named him the 3rd best player in the world. In actual skill I guarantee King Kong was literally never even top 50 in the entire history of SC2 and most people haven't even heard of him. If that doesn't show how flawed aligulac is I don't know what will.
All that to say at this point in time Serral would without a doubt be the top player in any objective rating system. Both in current and likely in overall time spent as #1. However he would not have hit #1 in 2017 and would not have spent most of 2018 as #1 and his overall time spent as #1 would be a lot lower. That was pure rating inflation due to beating up on players worse than him. The first time he hit #1 his winrate vs Koreans was in the 40% range for the few months leading up to it. His winrate has continued to be inflated particularly in the years that had 3 EU regionals with 8 player round robin groups. If you put Maru in a serral-less EU regional group with round robin 3 times per year his aligulac would jump significantly.
Yeah I don't think people realize that dominating EU in 2018 with players like MaNa / Has getting to finals is not particularly difficult. Reynor was only able to play the latest DH iirc and he was the only real "threat" in EU at the time imho. SpeCial was pretty good back then too and I believe he also managed to go far that year but the brackets from back then were not super competitive in EU
Aligulac is a particularly flawed tool. You could abuse it if you wanted to (or even not knowingly)
Dear @Poopi, It may have not been particularly difficult to dominate EU 2018, but that same guy who did it also won The GSL vs World, and Blizzcon same year.
Sure, Aligulac rewarded him for such feats. Keep it honest.
On July 23 2024 08:08 UnLarva wrote: Dear @Poopi, It may have not been particularly difficult to dominate EU 2018, but that same guy who did it also won The GSL vs World, and Blizzcon same year.
Sure, Aligulac rewarded him for such feats. Keep it honest.
Oh it's not a jab at Serral. I have been saying on this very forum before BlizzCon 2018 that Serral was better than Dark/Rogue etc. (top KR zergs at the time)
People thought I was trolling. I really wasn't (albeit given my reputation as a shit poster / troll, I "played" on it so it was difficult to be sure what was on my mind)
On July 23 2024 08:08 UnLarva wrote: Dear @Poopi, It may have not been particularly difficult to dominate EU 2018, but that same guy who did it also won The GSL vs World, and Blizzcon same year.
Sure, Aligulac rewarded him for such feats. Keep it honest.
Oh it's not a jab at Serral. I have been saying on this very forum before BlizzCon 2018 that Serral was better than Dark/Rogue etc. (top KR zergs at the time)
People thought I was trolling. I really wasn't (albeit given my reputation as a shit poster / troll, I "played" on it so it was difficult to be sure what was on my mind)
It's just that aligulac can be really bad
No worries. I'm probably the last man to accuse anyone for trolling or shitposting (certifiedly so). That said, Aligulac is attacked against usually for false reasons. People expect things from it that were never part of the project, or the logic it builds upon. That sucks. As said already the biggest problem for objectivity of the rating system is that there exists obvious inclusion bias for top players and their matches i.e. resolution is much higher for top players than for newcomers. It is not problem in this discussion as for the top players the impact is minimal on average within the system (particularly for players playing in the 'top players' bubble', for example Maru and Serral.)
Problem's origin is a lack of volunteers in the task for proper Data input.
At least part of the system's rating inflation (which is normal per se) comes from the asymmetry of inclusion of data points (not every game deserving to be in the data set ever get included), as rating points filter toward the top naturally, but also because low-mid tiers' stats aren't properly taken account due inclusion bias. That causes systematic over inflation more prominent and near the top the player is; more ratings points are pumped to the system with every new incoming introduced player, but more prominent the player is, more often his/hers games are included, and thus more often they have a chance to pump rating points up into the system. Then there are ultimate farmers at the top: Global all around Serral, Korean GSL Maru, and Global online MaxPax (Yes, ridiculously oversimplified caricature to show the point) to farm the system points and inflate the ratings...
Gee, great. The logic of the system is perfect (as stated), sociology around it isn't. That's the fault.
I wonder, and am too lazy to actually test how Aligulac performs versus expert human intuition that does attempt to factor in the intangibles when it comes to predictions.
Say, the average of the top 10 Liquibetters versus Aligulac, it could be quite interesting!
On July 23 2024 09:26 WombaT wrote: I wonder, and am too lazy to actually test how Aligulac performs versus expert human intuition that does attempt to factor in the intangibles when it comes to predictions.
Say, the average of the top 10 Liquibetters versus Aligulac, it could be quite interesting!
Above 80% the winrates become a bit more erratic, and it seems like the system slightly overestimates the chances for the stronger player.
Thus, if the prediction system shows a winrate of
80% or higher in a best of 1 90% or higher in a best of 3 94% or higher in a best of 5 96% or higher in a best of 7 the numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.
Serral has effectively reaching the limit where the math and predictive statistical power of Aligulac's system breaks, and have been for a while. Reality is very near to check the theory.
My human intuition says that the trend will continue, maybe not uninterrupted but overall. Amen.
Add: Hastily adding that from economic perspective things have been looking similar for long; betting companies have been typically placing odds in favor of Serral at least half decade by now. In every single game were Serral plays and you can set a wager. Maybe they just check Aligulac or something else, but there is monetary incentive there. Betting companies typically do not throw their odds from anti-statistical heaven with only cheerful hobbyist intentions.
I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
On July 22 2024 20:17 MJG wrote: You haven't tried to account for any of that context though. You've simply assumed that all things are equal across all eras and expansions, and then treated the numbers as absolute. It should be obvious to everyone here that all eras and expansions are not equal, and so treating the numbers as absolute is somewhat foolish.
This is blatantly untrue and is addressed at length in Premo's post. How about you try reading it before starting arguments in the comments?
I did read it.
He hasn't done it.
Not what I'm talking about anyway.
Maybe you're the one who needs to read posts before starting arguments?
Well, akshually, the absurd degree to which he weighted eras and tournament types is where he did exactly what you're talking about
It's really not. Picking a single cut-off point for weighting results isn't nearly what I was getting at. But I'm going to stop discussing this because it's clear that nobody is going to budge, that we're all talking past one another, and that the discourse is getting increasingly bitter...
The irony remains that I don't even know who I consider to be the GOAT. I just know that it's neither of the two most mentioned contenders because I'm just that biased against Legacy of the Void being taken seriously!
First and foremost, if it was me who came about bitter: This was not my intention! My replies may sound like this via simple text blocks, without features like mimics or intonation, but I promise you I am very cordial fella (which can be persistent about points he disagrees with).
I know that these questions you posed demand a higher resolution if one NEEDED to answer them, which my 50% buff does not address. But as I said in another post: The higher resolution does not matter (except for theory-crafting-purposes). I stacked every possible handicap on Serral that I could. Only one-sided with a much larger margin than even Maru=GOAT-proponents like Miz did. That is why I pointed out that most of the things you posted are very marginal factors. Most of them are included in this 50% deduction for post-2018 tournaments. And even if they would vary for players within that era (one could argue that pre-2012 should be given a much lower bonus than 2013-2015/2016, down-regulating Mvp's claim even more), the end result of this analysis would stay the same. For example GSL from former times have been awarded not only 50% as an era-multiplier but another 20% in comparison to GSLs post-2018 by them being factored in 0.2 points more in the tournament-multiplier. The prep-tournament question was addressed too.
In regards to that LotV notion: I like that you are open about this bias, although balance-wise for most parts I couldn't find much to support your fiasco-claim. Most data suggests Premier Tournaments win rates being dominated by Zerg and Terran is mostly influenced by them having the 2 biggest outliers in the history of the game since 2018 (on top, Zerg having a 3 times world champion does not hurt), a power vacuum for Protoss post-2018 that wasn't really filled, as well as the arguably best/2nd best Protoss of the recent years only playing online. In LotV win rates mostly were 45-55%. When thinking about utterly ridiculous balanced games, Command and Conquerer Generals - Zero Hour comes to mind, where the Aurora Bomber of the USA together with China being so bad had players agreeing that everyone lining up as random in tournaments should do the trick, to equal out the suck. Anyways, as you never came back to this, here is a question from before: "So the data to suggest this fiasco you are portraying, is prize money earned, did I understand you correctly?"
On July 22 2024 01:29 Mizenhauer wrote: No Mvp, no goat list.
100%
But Mvp is in this list as a pre-contender. I replied to this very comment earlier in the thread as well, perhaps you didn't see:
" 1. His Aligulac ranking went as expected. He was 106 lists in the top 10. Around 30 times less than Serral was on rank 1. But when he was in the top 10, he was on rank 1 71,30% - the best score after Serral. This is countered by his low representation in the top 10, with only 84 times, the second lowest score.
2. On the Aligulac HoF he is placed 8th, which gives him the number 4 spot on the list. His PP score versus INnoVation, Maru and Serral is pretty bad though.
3. Mvp's overall match win rate is 52,38%, by a large margin the lowest score. His best year wouldn't even put him in the top 5 years, as Serral's and Maru's best years are better.
4. 2011 saves him a 2nd place in the Tournament win rate analysis. But if he had continued like in 2012 and 2013 he would have dropped down to last place as well in 2014.
5. Average place also sees him in the last place, as 2012 and 2013, drag his hyper successful year 2011 down.
6. As it is obvious by simply counting that Mvp can't win in the tournament score and I was too lazy to actually calculate all the tournaments he participated in, I simply gave him a tournament multiplier of 1 for each placement (massively boosting his score), except his world championship, which of course was multiplied with 1,1. He still has the lowest tournament score.
7. Efficiency-wise he is placed 3rd behind Serral and Maru, as 2011 is his only year where he collected many points, which in relation made his efficiency go down. This score is also boosted as it is a dividend of the tournament score.
Mvp is the player with the least consistency and duration and the trend implies that more years would have simply made his statistics look worse. He only has 1 hyper dominant year, which is not even the best year in this whole comparison and he sports match win rates of under 50% (2012), 38% (2013) and 31% (2014) . It is safe to say that my pre-screening was correct in not letting him in the final contender list."
Adressing everyone who was taking part in the aligulac discussion: For all I care. Take away 32 of Serral's #1 spots (INnoVation's entire rank 1 count who came in 2nd). He still by far outclasses everyone, although this would be utterly unfair to do. Because even if Serral reached a #1 on aligulac before winning a Premier Tournament: This is simply what that metric measures... performance versus other players. Premier tournament wins have been accounted for in another metric. That is why I used 7 different analyzes... Serral is on top of every single one - in 6 out 7 metrics by far.
On July 23 2024 09:28 JJH777 wrote: However he would not have hit #1 in 2017 and would not have spent most of 2018 as #1 and his overall time spent as #1 would be a lot lower. That was pure rating inflation due to beating up on players worse than him. The first time he hit #1 his winrate vs Koreans was in the 40% range for the few months leading up to it.
Well... Aligulac measures Korean players who play versus non-Koreans who play versus Serral. Even if he didn't play them at the end of the year, an educated guess by the machine was made how good Serral would fare versus other player, he didn't play as often, which was verified in 2018, as then Serral's win rate was over 85% versus top Koreans. Why he should lose this spot with win rates that no one else ever achieved is something that needs to be explained. Further: The time in which Serral had rank 1 versus the time he actually played and beat the top Koreans is only 2 months. If I take away all of his top 10 spots from that period, it amounts to less than 1% difference in the overall count...
Lol Serral again. Nothing new from some obsessed fans trying to claim that he should be no.1 no matter what. Next month we get another new 'depth analysis' essay again written by someone else and I bet the verdict from his writing will be the same as usual.
On July 23 2024 18:50 swarminfestor wrote: Lol Serral again. Nothing new from some obsessed fans trying to claim that he should be no.1 no matter what. Next month we get another new 'depth analysis' essay again written by someone else and I bet the verdict from his writing will be the same as usual.
Anything else in store except ad hominems? I mean I laid out measurable data and penalized Serral wherever I could, sometimes at ridiculous rates... if anything Serral-fanboys would have a right to criticize my analysis as biased, lol. Did you even bother to read it?
On July 23 2024 18:50 swarminfestor wrote: Lol Serral again. Nothing new from some obsessed fans trying to claim that he should be no.1 no matter what. Next month we get another new 'depth analysis' essay again written by someone else and I bet the verdict from his writing will be the same as usual.
Anything else in store except ad hominems? I mean I laid out measurable data and penalized Serral wherever I could, sometimes at ridiculous rates... if anything Serral-fanboys would have a right to criticize my analysis as biased, lol. Did you even bother to read it?
Maru > Serral in terms of greatness Serral is great too though, one of the greatest That's my opinion, yours seems to be that Serral is the GOAT It's fine, we have different opinions
On July 23 2024 19:10 PremoBeats wrote: Why do you think Maru is greater?
He has done inhuman things repeateadly, that no other human could do at the time More than any other player His "flavor" / "touch" is something else compared to others
Maru evolved from this kid to a "godlike" / "mythical entity" / "mythical pokemon". He was there at the beginning of Starcraft 2, so young but still having exceptionally good results for his age (basically a "prodigy", like many others, Creator, Life, etc.). And there he is now in 2024, as one of the favorites for the World Championship. The guy is still at the top level. He has maintained elite level consistently, across all eras / patches of the game.
On July 23 2024 18:50 swarminfestor wrote: Lol Serral again. Nothing new from some obsessed fans trying to claim that he should be no.1 no matter what. Next month we get another new 'depth analysis' essay again written by someone else and I bet the verdict from his writing will be the same as usual.
OP analysis is worth to read, you know. From Serral fanboi's perspective it is great read as it doesn't leave much room for accusations on favoritism as it base everything on objectively available, common statistics, and uses such absurd nerfs, penalties, and handicaps for Serral (and lesser extend to Maru too) that it is actually amazing how there even can be so much debate on some matters related to the topic.
Best merit of the analysis is however the fact it force revisiting weighting and value of certain high held, beloved, stone carved nostalgo-maniac assumptions that were already over the top 2018 concerning classic Kespa-era. That is important in sense that if Serral cannot be the GOAT, neither can Maru, demonstrated by hard, cold, statistical facts.
I for one would be extremely happy if there would pop up a new fresh look on the topic every single month, preferably with fresh perspectives and higher resolution over the topic. Any work that makes era and player comparisons less hazy and subjective are very much welcomed by me.
The Author of the analysis really deserve respect for his, no doubt, very time consuming efforts to clarify some things. Do anyone here really think that quality and intensity of competition suddenly dropped from 2015/16 to 2018 that much it would really justify 50% nerf to later era tournaments?
On July 23 2024 19:10 PremoBeats wrote: Why do you think Maru is greater?
He has done inhuman things repeateadly, that no other human could do at the time More than any other player His "flavor" / "touch" is something else compared to others
Maru evolved from this kid https://youtu.be/5QkCJDTg6ec?si=1HNuEG13yP_FoqSl&t=47 to a "godlike" / "mythical entity" / "mythical pokemon". He was there at the beginning of Starcraft 2, so young but still having exceptionally good results for his age (basically a "prodigy", like many others, Creator, Life, etc.). And there he is now in 2024, as one of the favorites for the World Championship. The guy is still at the top level. He has maintained elite level consistently, across all eras / patches of the game.
Alright, so your metrics are excellence at a young age and duration of career - implying the ability to adept - coupled with high end results?
@UnLarva: Thanks for the kind words and the recognition of me disfavoring Serral. I am currently working on the higher resolution of the transition you spoke of. My vacation ends soon.. perhaps I'll be able to finish it, as the wind for kiting seems to pass me somewhere else.
On July 23 2024 18:50 swarminfestor wrote: Lol Serral again. Nothing new from some obsessed fans trying to claim that he should be no.1 no matter what. Next month we get another new 'depth analysis' essay again written by someone else and I bet the verdict from his writing will be the same as usual.
OP analysis is worth to read, you know. From Serral fanboi's perspective it is great read as it doesn't leave much room for accusations on favoritism as it base everything on objectively available, common statistics, and uses such absurd nerfs, penalties, and handicaps for Serral (and lesser extend to Maru too) that it is actually amazing how there even can be so much debate on some matters related to the topic.
Best merit of the analysis is however the fact it force revisiting weighting and value of certain high held, beloved, stone carved nostalgo-maniac assumptions that were already over the top 2018 concerning classic Kespa-era. That is important in sense that if Serral cannot be the GOAT, neither can Maru, demonstrated by hard, cold, statistical facts.
I for one would be extremely happy if there would pop up a new fresh look on the topic every single month, preferably with fresh perspectives and higher resolution over the topic. Any work that makes era and player comparisons less hazy and subjective are very much welcomed by me.
The Author of the analysis really deserve respect for his, no doubt, very time consuming efforts to clarify some things. Do anyone here really think that quality and intensity of competition suddenly dropped from 2015/16 to 2018 that much it would really justify 50% nerf to later era tournaments?
I suspect NO.
Yeah I disagreed with that part of the analysis because the competitiveness didn't suddenly massively drop from one year to another, it was more of a gradual decrease. Personally I would've divided it into 3 or 4 parts with full score being given to the Kespa era, then a slightly lower score for 2017-2019 (Kespa disbanded but most players kept going), then a significantly lower score from 2020 on (that was when the military retirements really kicked in). Optionally also a lower score for WoL although that's arguable because tons of players were playing the game and that era required the most innovation/strategic prowess out of players.
On July 23 2024 19:10 PremoBeats wrote: Why do you think Maru is greater?
He has done inhuman things repeateadly, that no other human could do at the time More than any other player His "flavor" / "touch" is something else compared to others
Maru evolved from this kid https://youtu.be/5QkCJDTg6ec?si=1HNuEG13yP_FoqSl&t=47 to a "godlike" / "mythical entity" / "mythical pokemon". He was there at the beginning of Starcraft 2, so young but still having exceptionally good results for his age (basically a "prodigy", like many others, Creator, Life, etc.). And there he is now in 2024, as one of the favorites for the World Championship. The guy is still at the top level. He has maintained elite level consistently, across all eras / patches of the game.
Alright, so your metrics are excellence at a young age and duration of career - implying the ability to adept - coupled with high end results?
@UnLarva: Thanks for the kind words and the recognition of me disfavoring Serral. I am currently working on the higher resolution of the transition you spoke of. My vacation ends soon.. perhaps I'll be able to finish it, as the wind for kiting seems to pass me somewhere else.
Once again if you want to prove a point using metrics and statistics you are wasting your time, but I guess you are the kind to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.
So I guess since you seem to want to have the last word with this, the GOAT will ultimately be the last player/bot to play starcraft 2 before the servers die / get terminated
I enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing with random strangers from the internet, bots or not, so keep going
On July 23 2024 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
On July 23 2024 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
I agree with Uthermal that if LIFE wasn't banned and didn't gamble etc and continued to play, he would be the GOAT easy.
If only Life didn't mess up!
Life was better than Maru and Serral period.
Life owns his entire legacy to "messing up". If he hadn't, he would have been relegated by now in the Top 10-15 range of players and that only because he is a World Champion, otherwise no one would really bring up his name.
On July 23 2024 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
I agree with Uthermal that if LIFE wasn't banned and didn't gamble etc and continued to play, he would be the GOAT easy.
If only Life didn't mess up!
Life was better than Maru and Serral period.
Life owns his entire legacy to "messing up". If he hadn't, he would have been relegated by now in the Top 10-15 range of players and that only because he is a World Champion, otherwise no one would really bring up his name.
I think that’s slightly exaggerating it, but the ‘might have been’ is often stronger than the reality. The factors that saw Life drawn into match fixing in all likelihood would have seen him being unable to maintain the motivation to stay at the top of the game in perpetuity in a way Maru or Serral have managed, IMO anyway.
I mean in a hypothetical world where Innovation had some crippling injury in like 2014/15 I imagine his reputation today would be as a lock for GOAT who was cruelly prevented from achieving his destiny. But the reality was rather different.
On July 23 2024 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
I agree with Uthermal that if LIFE wasn't banned and didn't gamble etc and continued to play, he would be the GOAT easy.
If only Life didn't mess up!
Life was better than Maru and Serral period.
Do you also agree with uThermal that as Life got banned and didn't continue, that Serral is the clear choice?
I always thought it to be strange to put Life in such high regards when TaeJa finished his career as the most decorated player of the entirety of 2010-2016, to be only put behind by Serral, Maru and Reynor in terms of accomplishments years later.
On July 23 2024 19:10 PremoBeats wrote: Why do you think Maru is greater?
He has done inhuman things repeateadly, that no other human could do at the time More than any other player His "flavor" / "touch" is something else compared to others
Maru evolved from this kid https://youtu.be/5QkCJDTg6ec?si=1HNuEG13yP_FoqSl&t=47 to a "godlike" / "mythical entity" / "mythical pokemon". He was there at the beginning of Starcraft 2, so young but still having exceptionally good results for his age (basically a "prodigy", like many others, Creator, Life, etc.). And there he is now in 2024, as one of the favorites for the World Championship. The guy is still at the top level. He has maintained elite level consistently, across all eras / patches of the game.
Alright, so your metrics are excellence at a young age and duration of career - implying the ability to adept - coupled with high end results?
@UnLarva: Thanks for the kind words and the recognition of me disfavoring Serral. I am currently working on the higher resolution of the transition you spoke of. My vacation ends soon.. perhaps I'll be able to finish it, as the wind for kiting seems to pass me somewhere else.
Once again if you want to prove a point using metrics and statistics you are wasting your time, but I guess you are the kind to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.
So I guess since you seem to want to have the last word with this, the GOAT will ultimately be the last player/bot to play starcraft 2 before the servers die / get terminated
I enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing with random strangers from the internet, bots or not, so keep going
Do you think it is worthless because some people are in denial of data? Because there are many who are not.
I don't like arguing for the same of arguing, but I won't leave untrue statements uncommented.
On July 23 2024 18:50 swarminfestor wrote: Lol Serral again. Nothing new from some obsessed fans trying to claim that he should be no.1 no matter what. Next month we get another new 'depth analysis' essay again written by someone else and I bet the verdict from his writing will be the same as usual.
OP analysis is worth to read, you know. From Serral fanboi's perspective it is great read as it doesn't leave much room for accusations on favoritism as it base everything on objectively available, common statistics, and uses such absurd nerfs, penalties, and handicaps for Serral (and lesser extend to Maru too) that it is actually amazing how there even can be so much debate on some matters related to the topic.
Best merit of the analysis is however the fact it force revisiting weighting and value of certain high held, beloved, stone carved nostalgo-maniac assumptions that were already over the top 2018 concerning classic Kespa-era. That is important in sense that if Serral cannot be the GOAT, neither can Maru, demonstrated by hard, cold, statistical facts.
I for one would be extremely happy if there would pop up a new fresh look on the topic every single month, preferably with fresh perspectives and higher resolution over the topic. Any work that makes era and player comparisons less hazy and subjective are very much welcomed by me.
The Author of the analysis really deserve respect for his, no doubt, very time consuming efforts to clarify some things. Do anyone here really think that quality and intensity of competition suddenly dropped from 2015/16 to 2018 that much it would really justify 50% nerf to later era tournaments?
I suspect NO.
Yeah I disagreed with that part of the analysis because the competitiveness didn't suddenly massively drop from one year to another, it was more of a gradual decrease. Personally I would've divided it into 3 or 4 parts with full score being given to the Kespa era, then a slightly lower score for 2017-2019 (Kespa disbanded but most players kept going), then a significantly lower score from 2020 on (that was when the military retirements really kicked in). Optionally also a lower score for WoL although that's arguable because tons of players were playing the game and that era required the most innovation/strategic prowess out of players.
You realize I only made a sudden drop to disadvantage Serral more? If there was another grade involved, INno, Maru and Rogue would have gotten less boost versus Serral in 2017.
On July 23 2024 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
I agree with Uthermal that if LIFE wasn't banned and didn't gamble etc and continued to play, he would be the GOAT easy.
If only Life didn't mess up!
Life was better than Maru and Serral period.
Life owns his entire legacy to "messing up". If he hadn't, he would have been relegated by now in the Top 10-15 range of players and that only because he is a World Champion, otherwise no one would really bring up his name.
I mean in a hypothetical world where Innovation had some crippling injury in like 2014/15 I imagine his reputation today would be as a lock for GOAT who was cruelly prevented from achieving his destiny. But the reality was rather different.
It's very interested for me to see some specific Maru fans being annoyed by the ariticles claiming Serral as the goat, they are always rushing to argue that their idol is the GOAT in terms of some nitpicking criteria where Serral's fans even don't care about, so funny! 🤡
On July 23 2024 23:38 lorestarcraft wrote: You can't be the GOAT if you never won GSL. That's just how I feel about it, and nothing anyone says will make me value GSL less.
Korean elitists are still lying to themselves and not facing the truth, sadly.
On July 23 2024 23:34 PremoBeats wrote: Do you think it is worthless because some people are in denial of data? Because there are many who are not.
I don't like arguing for the same of arguing, but I won't leave untrue statements uncommented.
Is this a genuine typo by a human typing it, or some noise introduced in the answer / data to make it look human?
Once again, analyzing data is cool and all but it won't give an absolute answer to the question: "who is the greatest starcraft 2 player of all time"? As was said beforehands, it will just eliminate players and a handful of people will remain in the conversation.
On July 23 2024 23:40 njleslu2024 wrote: It's very interested for me to see some specific Maru fans being annoyed by the ariticles claiming Serral as the goat, they are always rushing to argue that their idol is the GOAT in terms of some nitpicking criteria where Serral's fans even don't care about, so funny! 🤡
You're projecting. You don't care yet serral fans will argue about it rabidly.
You probably were one of those types that would say "I'm out, no more foreigners" in regards to watching a tournament because only Koreans were left.
On July 23 2024 23:40 njleslu2024 wrote: It's very interested for me to see some specific Maru fans being annoyed by the ariticles claiming Serral as the goat, they are always rushing to argue that their idol is the GOAT in terms of some nitpicking criteria where Serral's fans even don't care about, so funny! 🤡
You're projecting. You don't care yet serral fans will argue about it rabidly.
You probably were one of those types that would say "I'm out, no more foreigners" in regards to watching a tournament because only Koreans were left.
I don't wanna disappoint you but actually your statement is completely wrong. There are a decent amount of Korean players I like, Dark, Zest, herO, ByuN etc. I'm truly a fan of Serral but I don't think I NEED to brainstorm a lot and come up with some unusual criteria to nitpick Maru's achievements and boost Serral's, you know? Serral's trophy list and the data listed by the author show clearly how far ahead he is comparing with others. Who are the ones still coping? I don't know!
On July 23 2024 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
I agree with Uthermal that if LIFE wasn't banned and didn't gamble etc and continued to play, he would be the GOAT easy.
If only Life didn't mess up!
Life was better than Maru and Serral period.
Life owns his entire legacy to "messing up". If he hadn't, he would have been relegated by now in the Top 10-15 range of players and that only because he is a World Champion, otherwise no one would really bring up his name.
I think that’s slightly exaggerating it, but the ‘might have been’ is often stronger than the reality. The factors that saw Life drawn into match fixing in all likelihood would have seen him being unable to maintain the motivation to stay at the top of the game in perpetuity in a way Maru or Serral have managed, IMO anyway.
I mean in a hypothetical world where Innovation had some crippling injury in like 2014/15 I imagine his reputation today would be as a lock for GOAT who was cruelly prevented from achieving his destiny. But the reality was rather different.
While there is some truth to it I think the Life situation is somewhat different because: 1. He was much younger than Inno. Most sc2 players seem to peak somewhere between 20-25, Life didn't even reach that age yet when he got banned 2. Unlike Inno who was a practice machine during his peak Life actually didn't need to practice that much to be the best.
At the end of the day we can never tell, but imo if Life didn't get banned he'd with 95% certainty the Goat now. Even if the scenario that he declines exactly like Inno did he'd still be a top contender for Goat as Inno still won like GSL, SSL, IEM Gyeonggi, GSL the world and WESG after 2015. Add those to Life's resumee and he'd have a strong case to be the Goat.
On July 23 2024 23:38 lorestarcraft wrote: You can't be the GOAT if you never won GSL. That's just how I feel about it, and nothing anyone says will make me value GSL less.
You don't have to devalue GSL to make Serral GOAT as he won a more prestigous tournament twice. Just saying.
On July 23 2024 23:34 PremoBeats wrote: Do you think it is worthless because some people are in denial of data? Because there are many who are not.
I don't like arguing for the same of arguing, but I won't leave untrue statements uncommented.
Is this a genuine typo by a human typing it, or some noise introduced in the answer / data to make it look human?
Once again, analyzing data is cool and all but it won't give an absolute answer to the question: "who is the greatest starcraft 2 player of all time"? As was said beforehands, it will just eliminate players and a handful of people will remain in the conversation.
No idea if I should be flattered or insulted being compared to a computer
So far, you did not put up notions as to why you think that is. You are simply making a statement without backing it up.
I am saying: - We can define criteria for potential GOATs (even weighing them, if needed) - We can gather data to analyze the criteria - We are thus able to compare players and rank their placements - We can further collect data to make era-influence more palpable
Now the weighing parts are subjective and people habe to be logically coherent, when discussing them. But if one side is disadvantaged more than the other side's fans are even asking for and still winning by far... what is left out? What is missing? Every weighing is in vain as one player is on top in all metrics. What is my blind spot?
So the reason for me that Serral isn't necessarily the goat is this: For me tournament result is the only objective measure of balance, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much you crush the other guy, it is about taking home the trophy. The results should be how you leave your mark on the game. Rogue punching above his weight class is just as impressive, as were it the case that he always played at this level, even on ladder. This was the same for Stats, the best Toss of LotV, he was infamously low on the ladder. It was the opposite for sOs, everyone and their mother feared sOs, but when it came to the tournament, in LotV that is, he would falter.
You didn't counter the balance issue properly, not that you HAVE to address this issue, you could say that if you look at it objectively, this means that you should disregard balance. But honestly, you said that if you remove Maru and Serral the biggest outliers. that the game would be pretty damned balance. If you remove herO, Protoss as a race didn't win GSL, or a higher tier caliber tournament since, after 2017. The list of players who did, excluding herO, Maru and Serral are: Oliveira, Solar, Cure, Gumiho, SoO, Scarlett, INnoVation, Dark, Reynor, Rogue and TY. 11 players and no Protoss. I wouldn't fault a person for simply excluding 2018+ years out of the GOAT debate, simply because it holds little value to be the GOAT of a 2x race game.
The argument for Serral not playing the most competitive era is tough. If SC2 almost died, but the online competitive scene continued with Maxpax dominating it for 50 years. People would argue that maxpax would be the GOAT, but the time that he played would've been simply too different, so who's really to say.
Let me write the timeline for GOATage: MC/MVP -> Life -> sOs -> INnoVation -> Maru -> Serral
You can argue some names should be here or there, but the overarching picture is like this. So, if we say that the end of HotS is the peak of competitiveness then that removes MC/MVP. So now it is a spectrum of how much you value the time from after the Kespa abandonment. If you say life is meaningless after Kespa, Life is your GOAT, if you still value the era up and including to 2017, then INnoVation is your GOAT, then there is 2020+ where Blizzcon wasn't there anymore and so on and depending on how much you value the different scenes you could put either Life, sOs, INnoVation, Maru or Serral as your GOAT. If you do put Serral, Maru and Rogue in the top 3, as most people do, with possibly Dark, or INnoVation as the 4th spot, then I would consider Serral the GOAT, since the scene that includes Serral, Rogue and Maru is from 2017+. And wouldn't this in turn make 2017+ the most valuable era?, you could argue that Life couldn't be the GOAT because he didn't get to witness the Serral, Rogue and Maru peaks.
On July 23 2024 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
I agree with Uthermal that if LIFE wasn't banned and didn't gamble etc and continued to play, he would be the GOAT easy.
If only Life didn't mess up!
Life was better than Maru and Serral period.
Life owns his entire legacy to "messing up". If he hadn't, he would have been relegated by now in the Top 10-15 range of players and that only because he is a World Champion, otherwise no one would really bring up his name.
I think that’s slightly exaggerating it, but the ‘might have been’ is often stronger than the reality. The factors that saw Life drawn into match fixing in all likelihood would have seen him being unable to maintain the motivation to stay at the top of the game in perpetuity in a way Maru or Serral have managed, IMO anyway.
I mean in a hypothetical world where Innovation had some crippling injury in like 2014/15 I imagine his reputation today would be as a lock for GOAT who was cruelly prevented from achieving his destiny. But the reality was rather different.
While there is some truth to it I think the Life situation is somewhat different because: 1. He was much younger than Inno. Most sc2 players seem to peak somewhere between 20-25, Life didn't even reach that age yet when he got banned 2. Unlike Inno who was a practice machine during his peak Life actually didn't need to practice that much to be the best.
At the end of the day we can never tell, but imo if Life didn't get banned he'd with 95% certainty the Goat now. Even if the scenario that he declines exactly like Inno did he'd still be a top contender for Goat as Inno still won like GSL, SSL, IEM Gyeonggi, GSL the world and WESG after 2015. Add those to Life's resumee and he'd have a strong case to be the Goat.
I think he'd be in the conversation, I don't think he'd necessarily be a standout GOAT candidate.
He's an interesting transitional player, along with Taeja of a similar age profile. Both are quite well-renowned for being these 'natural talents', and honestly I think they were actually very close in that regard, Life certainly has the bigger prizes. But both were the two players of that era who were able to hang with the Kespa crew of the eSF holdouts, on basically that talent alone. Someone like Maru essentially became a Kespa player, or somebody like Byun who wasn't, grinded like an absolute lunatic.
But the overall bar was raised with that influx and that regime. So I think the question kinda shifts to whether Life coulda remained at the absolute cutting edge of the game while coasting on natural talent, or, if he couldn't, could he have put the requisite grind in? Which of course is a very unknowable thing.
My best guess is, given what he did, also given he was already showing somewhat inconsistent results in the likes of Proleague was that he could not have developed into some consistently dominant player. However that talent doesn't disappear, so he'd probably have been that kinda player who could bounce between bombing out of a GSL one season, into winning it another. And probably accumulated enough accomplishments to be super high up in GOAT considerations.
Eras aside though I don't think Life shows something similar to what say Serral is doing now, and is smacking everyone in 2016/17 etc
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
On July 23 2024 23:38 lorestarcraft wrote: You can't be the GOAT if you never won GSL. That's just how I feel about it, and nothing anyone says will make me value GSL less.
You don't have to devalue GSL to make Serral GOAT as he won a more prestigous tournament twice. Just saying.
On July 23 2024 23:34 PremoBeats wrote: Do you think it is worthless because some people are in denial of data? Because there are many who are not.
I don't like arguing for the same of arguing, but I won't leave untrue statements uncommented.
Is this a genuine typo by a human typing it, or some noise introduced in the answer / data to make it look human?
Once again, analyzing data is cool and all but it won't give an absolute answer to the question: "who is the greatest starcraft 2 player of all time"? As was said beforehands, it will just eliminate players and a handful of people will remain in the conversation.
No idea if I should be flattered or insulted being compared to a computer
So far, you did not put up notions as to why you think that is. You are simply making a statement without backing it up.
I am saying: - We can define criteria for potential GOATs (even weighing them, if needed) - We can gather data to analyze the criteria - We are thus able to compare players and rank their placements - We can further collect data to make era-influence more palpable
Now the weighing parts are subjective and people habe to be logically coherent, when discussing them. But if one side is disadvantaged more than the other side's fans are even asking for and still winning by far... what is left out? What is missing? Every weighing is in vain as one player is on top in all metrics. What is my blind spot?
I will try to come back to you later on (I am in a bit of a sleep deficit atm + lots of irl stuff to handle) and dissect your piece more ; in order to address your points more qualitatively! Thanks again for the work you put in, as a guy who enjoy numbers (and letters), I am just a bit frustrated not to be sharp enough atm to properly answer / do the work to properly express myself.
On July 23 2024 07:01 Charoisaur wrote: Do we really need to nitpick about how meaningful aligulac ratings are? Yeah, it's not a good metric to use, but Serral would be at the top regardless of the rating system we use, his winrates are just so far ahead of any other player.
Btw starcrafthistorian released a really good interview with uthermal that includes the topic, and he basically summarized what I also think
I agree with Uthermal that if LIFE wasn't banned and didn't gamble etc and continued to play, he would be the GOAT easy.
If only Life didn't mess up!
Life was better than Maru and Serral period.
Do you also agree with uThermal that as Life got banned and didn't continue, that Serral is the clear choice?
I always thought it to be strange to put Life in such high regards when TaeJa finished his career as the most decorated player of the entirety of 2010-2016, to be only put behind by Serral, Maru and Reynor in terms of accomplishments years later.
Taeja was nowhere near the best player of 2010-2016. He only won a single event that actually had the majority top guys present. Everything else he won was missing a multitude of top players. It was also mostly lower prize stuff, he always lost with bigger money in the line. He never won a world championship or a KIL. Another player overrated by aligulac.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
E: just for kicks, went ahead and found a sample size calculator at 95% confidence level. Assuming a population of 100, the sample size would need to be 80; for 1000 it'd be 278; and for 10,000 it'd be 370
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
38. It’s over for Maru
So we're calculating for a population of 41 people (assuming 95% confidence interval). Lol I guess that's one way to use stats
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
E: just for kicks, went ahead and found a sample size calculator at 95% confidence level. Assuming a population of 100, the sample size would need to be 80; for 1000 it'd be 278; and for 10,000 it'd be 370
Currently at 56. Serral is at nearly 80%… Dominating just like every other measurable metric.
Well, it's always the same... if people don't like the result of statistics / math, they usually say "your calculation is wrong". When you prove that the calculation is correct, they usually say "then the numbers are fake". When you prove that the numbers are correct, then they say "numbers are not all and everything". And when you admit to the argument and reduce the importance of numbers for the conclusion by some percentage, they tend to say "those numbers mean nothing at all".
In the end it's just a lenghty way to say "I don't care what numbers say, I have my opinion made by my personal preference, reality doesn't bother me"
@PremoBeats: don't waste your time arguing, you can't convince fanboys with numbers Thanks a lot for your hard work and detailed analysis!
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
E: just for kicks, went ahead and found a sample size calculator at 95% confidence level. Assuming a population of 100, the sample size would need to be 80; for 1000 it'd be 278; and for 10,000 it'd be 370
Currently at 56. Serral is at nearly 80%… Dominating just like every other measurable metric.
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
On July 21 2024 23:49 Waxangel wrote: I'm amused that the Mizenhauer series turned the GOAT argument from an occasional enthusiast topic into something people REALLY like to talk about
On July 24 2024 08:56 Tommy131313 wrote: Well, it's always the same... if people don't like the result of statistics / math, they usually say "your calculation is wrong". When you prove that the calculation is correct, they usually say "then the numbers are fake". When you prove that the numbers are correct, then they say "numbers are not all and everything". And when you admit to the argument and reduce the importance of numbers for the conclusion by some percentage, they tend to say "those numbers mean nothing at all".
In the end it's just a lenghty way to say "I don't care what numbers say, I have my opinion made by my personal preference, reality doesn't bother me"
@PremoBeats: don't waste your time arguing, you can't convince fanboys with numbers Thanks a lot for your hard work and detailed analysis!
10000% this ! Numbers dont lie. There are of course some preferences that can be adjusted (stronger era etc..), but they cant overwrite the numbers. But like Tommy said, you cant argue with believers.
On July 24 2024 11:09 lokol4890 wrote:
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
That sample is small, yes, but that wasnt the point of the discussion. Another metric ?? You realize that almost EVERY metric there can be points out Serral being the best player of all time. Why does it bother you ?
On July 23 2024 23:58 Charoisaur wrote: At the end of the day we can never tell, but imo if Life didn't get banned he'd with 95% certainty the Goat now.
Where does this "Life"-wind suddenly come from? Surely, guy was talented and all but these kind of predictions are just insane. He never even played Maru/Rogue/Serral on their prime either and prolly didnt have the stamina to last long in the scene anyways. Still of course shame that he ruined his career. Would have been super-exciting to see him stay in the scene longer.
On July 24 2024 00:04 ejozl wrote: So the reason for me that Serral isn't necessarily the goat is this: For me tournament result is the only objective measure of balance, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much you crush the other guy, it is about taking home the trophy. The results should be how you leave your mark on the game. Rogue punching above his weight class is just as impressive, as were it the case that he always played at this level, even on ladder. This was the same for Stats, the best Toss of LotV, he was infamously low on the ladder. It was the opposite for sOs, everyone and their mother feared sOs, but when it came to the tournament, in LotV that is, he would falter.
You didn't counter the balance issue properly, not that you HAVE to address this issue, you could say that if you look at it objectively, this means that you should disregard balance. But honestly, you said that if you remove Maru and Serral the biggest outliers. that the game would be pretty damned balance. If you remove herO, Protoss as a race didn't win GSL, or a higher tier caliber tournament since, after 2017. The list of players who did, excluding herO, Maru and Serral are: Oliveira, Solar, Cure, Gumiho, SoO, Scarlett, INnoVation, Dark, Reynor, Rogue and TY. 11 players and no Protoss. I wouldn't fault a person for simply excluding 2018+ years out of the GOAT debate, simply because it holds little value to be the GOAT of a 2x race game.
The argument for Serral not playing the most competitive era is tough. If SC2 almost died, but the online competitive scene continued with Maxpax dominating it for 50 years. People would argue that maxpax would be the GOAT, but the time that he played would've been simply too different, so who's really to say.
Let me write the timeline for GOATage: MC/MVP -> Life -> sOs -> INnoVation -> Maru -> Serral
You can argue some names should be here or there, but the overarching picture is like this. So, if we say that the end of HotS is the peak of competitiveness then that removes MC/MVP. So now it is a spectrum of how much you value the time from after the Kespa abandonment. If you say life is meaningless after Kespa, Life is your GOAT, if you still value the era up and including to 2017, then INnoVation is your GOAT, then there is 2020+ where Blizzcon wasn't there anymore and so on and depending on how much you value the different scenes you could put either Life, sOs, INnoVation, Maru or Serral as your GOAT. If you do put Serral, Maru and Rogue in the top 3, as most people do, with possibly Dark, or INnoVation as the 4th spot, then I would consider Serral the GOAT, since the scene that includes Serral, Rogue and Maru is from 2017+. And wouldn't this in turn make 2017+ the most valuable era?, you could argue that Life couldn't be the GOAT because he didn't get to witness the Serral, Rogue and Maru peaks.
So based on your observation that Protoss has no wins in high tier tournaments: Does that mean that neither a Terran nor Zerg can be GOAT? But you realize that even under the assumption that Protoss could not win (assuming T and Z were more or less balanced), a T or Z would still have to beat the other race and mirrors?
I am gathering more data on balance and era, so give me some time. I'll definitely address this better next time.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
In my opinion the poll is layed out wrongly. Because most people who are against Serral mostly argue about era. Meaning even if their GOAT was Mvp, they would much more likely settle with Maru.
From what I learned (having written a couple of pieces on reddit and one here): Life, Mvp and Maru are the names people drop.
I will prepare another article, where I will prepare Life's and Mvp's numbers in perfect alignment with my previous list and will also add some data to more accurately pin down era-variance.
But for the next poll: Put these 4 on... It is my intuition that Maru's votes will go down much more than Serral's (or people, as they now have read this will troll me and still vote Maru )
On July 24 2024 13:25 Starcloud wrote: That sample is small, yes, but that wasnt the point of the discussion. Another metric ?? You realize that almost EVERY metric there can be points out Serral being the best player of all time. Why does it bother you ?
Best not necessarily == greatest
And even then, I don't think he would have reached as much success with terran over the years
Maru is still the GOAT in my head, but I must admit that I have a soft spot for INnoVation in my heart as well
On July 24 2024 08:56 Tommy131313 wrote: Well, it's always the same... if people don't like the result of statistics / math, they usually say "your calculation is wrong". When you prove that the calculation is correct, they usually say "then the numbers are fake". When you prove that the numbers are correct, then they say "numbers are not all and everything". And when you admit to the argument and reduce the importance of numbers for the conclusion by some percentage, they tend to say "those numbers mean nothing at all".
In the end it's just a lenghty way to say "I don't care what numbers say, I have my opinion made by my personal preference, reality doesn't bother me"
@PremoBeats: don't waste your time arguing, you can't convince fanboys with numbers Thanks a lot for your hard work and detailed analysis!
10000% this ! Numbers dont lie. There are of course some preferences that can be adjusted (stronger era etc..), but they cant overwrite the numbers. But like Tommy said, you cant argue with believers.
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
That sample is small, yes, but that wasnt the point of the discussion. Another metric ?? You realize that almost EVERY metric there can be points out Serral being the best player of all time. Why does it bother you ?
On July 23 2024 23:58 Charoisaur wrote: At the end of the day we can never tell, but imo if Life didn't get banned he'd with 95% certainty the Goat now.
Where does this "Life"-wind suddenly come from? Surely, guy was talented and all but these kind of predictions are just insane. He never even played Maru/Rogue/Serral on their prime either and prolly didnt have the stamina to last long in the scene anyways. Still of course shame that he ruined his career. Would have been super-exciting to see him stay in the scene longer.
Maybe because he won 10 premier tournaments at the age of 18? Maru won 2 tournaments at that age (I know, he barely played overseas and probably wasn't that far behind Life). But still, nobody at that age was close to being as good as him, he's just the most talented player who has ever touched the game.
On July 24 2024 13:25 Starcloud wrote: That sample is small, yes, but that wasnt the point of the discussion. Another metric ?? You realize that almost EVERY metric there can be points out Serral being the best player of all time. Why does it bother you ?
Best not necessarily == greatest
And even then, I don't think he would have reached as much success with terran over the years
Maru is still the GOAT in my head, but I must admit that I have a soft spot for INnoVation in my heart as well
Okay, so 2 parts in this.
I have kinda hard time to understand how Best is not the Greatest ? Maru is a legendary player with many unique skills. He also has many, many, memorable games. He has had this "invincible" aura in Korea. BUT.....he hasnt won World Championship yet and he gets stomped by Serral time after time. Also almost every player in the field says that Serral is the goat. How is Maru greater than that ?
Second point. There is no way of proving that one way or another. In addition, Serral hasnt got any clear weaknesses in his game. If he would have devoted himself to another race, would he be actually even stronger (or weaker) ? There is no way of telling that and imo this point doesnt even belong to the debate itself.
Innovation was a wrecking ball that destoyed almost anybody in his prime. Was rooting for him any time he was in a tournament actually. Except when he later on collided with Serral of course.
1. World Championships and World Championship Level events. This category includes WCS Global Finals, BlizzCons and IEM World Championships after 2018, representing the most prestigious events of the world, where the best of the best compete. This category has a multiplier of 1,1. 2. GSL Code S, OSL, SSL until 2020 come in at a value of 1. The separation to later GSLs was made due to the restructuring of the tournament after 2020 Code S season 3 where player amount and difficulty of advancing was diminished a lot. 3. ESL Masters as well as DreamHack Season Finals from 2020 onwards, Master’s Coliseum. In contrast to Mizenhauer I devalued these events slightly in comparison to Code S, OSL and SSL. Although DH Last Chance 2022 (won by Maru), DH Last Chance 2021 (Serral 2nd place) as well as Master’s Coliseum 6 and 7 (both won by Serral) could have easily been upgraded to category 2 as the average player rank was simply absurd. MC6 had an Ro8 average of 4,75 and MC7 of 5,75 with 4,5 being the lowest possible score. These two tournaments were simply filled with the best the world had to offer until the very last moment. But out of respect to the old era (which again is a small added buff to this time) I devalued this category slightly at 0,95. This decision again disfaors Serral the most. 4. GSL Code S 2021 and following, GSL vs the World, WESG. The WESG should have been positioned in category 5 according to the involved players in Ro16 and Ro8 but was given an upward correction to category 4, as the prize pool was insane. GSL vs the world was corrected downward from category 3. Although the best of the world competed, the tournament structure was rather simple and it is widely regarded as a “show tournament” despite the best of the world attending. This category is a good example of my thought processes as for example 2013 DreamHack Open: Bucharest was corrected upward as only one player lowered the average score immensely. Lastly: 2013 WCS Season 1 was corrected upwards for era-reasonings, as it would have been placed in category 6 following the average player count. Category 4 is valued 0,8. 5. Category 5 includes random events such as King of Battles, miscellaneous Afreeca TV tournaments or ESL Masters locked regionals. Value: 0,85. 6. Mostly region-locked ESLs and HomeStoryCups which see another sharp decrease in value: 0,7. 7. This category only includes the Gold Professional Championship 2019 Season 1, which has the worst Ro16 and Ro8 ratings (86,38 and 44,75) as well as low price money. Nothing to write home about… sorry INnoVation, I can only multiply this tournament at 0,5.
Is there an error (bolded) in either relative values of Category 4 and Category 5 relative weights? Is it just typo in the text, or is that error also included to the math?
Not that it would make one iota difference in the big picture, but asking for clarity, as one would expect Cat 4 being weighted higher than Cat 5.
On July 24 2024 08:56 Tommy131313 wrote: Well, it's always the same... if people don't like the result of statistics / math, they usually say "your calculation is wrong". When you prove that the calculation is correct, they usually say "then the numbers are fake". When you prove that the numbers are correct, then they say "numbers are not all and everything". And when you admit to the argument and reduce the importance of numbers for the conclusion by some percentage, they tend to say "those numbers mean nothing at all".
In the end it's just a lenghty way to say "I don't care what numbers say, I have my opinion made by my personal preference, reality doesn't bother me"
@PremoBeats: don't waste your time arguing, you can't convince fanboys with numbers Thanks a lot for your hard work and detailed analysis!
10000% this ! Numbers dont lie. There are of course some preferences that can be adjusted (stronger era etc..), but they cant overwrite the numbers. But like Tommy said, you cant argue with believers.
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
That sample is small, yes, but that wasnt the point of the discussion. Another metric ?? You realize that almost EVERY metric there can be points out Serral being the best player of all time. Why does it bother you ?
On July 23 2024 23:58 Charoisaur wrote: At the end of the day we can never tell, but imo if Life didn't get banned he'd with 95% certainty the Goat now.
Where does this "Life"-wind suddenly come from? Surely, guy was talented and all but these kind of predictions are just insane. He never even played Maru/Rogue/Serral on their prime either and prolly didnt have the stamina to last long in the scene anyways. Still of course shame that he ruined his career. Would have been super-exciting to see him stay in the scene longer.
The Life wind didn't come out suddenly. He's seared into the minds of anybody who's watched him play. That dude was legit and a freak.
Did you watch him play back in the day? He was absolutely insane.
He was winning tourneys left and right and I believe his earnings were well on track to be the highest earner if not already at the time he was playing.
His playstyle was absolutely suited for legacy of the void. Zero doubt if Life didn't do what he did and get himself banned and if he continued to play (I think that's a safe assumption considering most Korean sc2 pros who win do stay) he would have absolutely dominated in LOTV.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
E: just for kicks, went ahead and found a sample size calculator at 95% confidence level. Assuming a population of 100, the sample size would need to be 80; for 1000 it'd be 278; and for 10,000 it'd be 370
Currently at 56. Serral is at nearly 80%… Dominating just like every other measurable metric.
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
Lowko did a poll on X, including 27 thousands people and Serral still has 80%, more sample size more advantage for Serral
On July 24 2024 08:56 Tommy131313 wrote: Well, it's always the same... if people don't like the result of statistics / math, they usually say "your calculation is wrong". When you prove that the calculation is correct, they usually say "then the numbers are fake". When you prove that the numbers are correct, then they say "numbers are not all and everything". And when you admit to the argument and reduce the importance of numbers for the conclusion by some percentage, they tend to say "those numbers mean nothing at all".
In the end it's just a lenghty way to say "I don't care what numbers say, I have my opinion made by my personal preference, reality doesn't bother me"
@PremoBeats: don't waste your time arguing, you can't convince fanboys with numbers Thanks a lot for your hard work and detailed analysis!
10000% this ! Numbers dont lie. There are of course some preferences that can be adjusted (stronger era etc..), but they cant overwrite the numbers. But like Tommy said, you cant argue with believers.
On July 24 2024 11:09 lokol4890 wrote:
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
That sample is small, yes, but that wasnt the point of the discussion. Another metric ?? You realize that almost EVERY metric there can be points out Serral being the best player of all time. Why does it bother you ?
On July 23 2024 23:58 Charoisaur wrote: At the end of the day we can never tell, but imo if Life didn't get banned he'd with 95% certainty the Goat now.
Where does this "Life"-wind suddenly come from? Surely, guy was talented and all but these kind of predictions are just insane. He never even played Maru/Rogue/Serral on their prime either and prolly didnt have the stamina to last long in the scene anyways. Still of course shame that he ruined his career. Would have been super-exciting to see him stay in the scene longer.
Maybe because he won 10 premier tournaments at the age of 18? Maru won 2 tournaments at that age (I know, he barely played overseas and probably wasn't that far behind Life). But still, nobody at that age was close to being as good as him, he's just the most talented player who has ever touched the game.
This is the tragedy of what Life did. Not only damage sc2 but we missed out on him playing and cementing his legacy.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
E: just for kicks, went ahead and found a sample size calculator at 95% confidence level. Assuming a population of 100, the sample size would need to be 80; for 1000 it'd be 278; and for 10,000 it'd be 370
Currently at 56. Serral is at nearly 80%… Dominating just like every other measurable metric.
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
Lowko did a poll on X, including 27 thousands people and Serral still has 80%, more sample size more advantage for Serral
While I assume that result is highly indicative, it is also selection biased toward foreign scene: it can be expected that there are relatively more Serral fans participating to the poll than there are Maru fans (due the forum) compared to the true ratio between them (what ever it maybe be).
Serral has already been the consensus among fans , casters and pros.
I usually just ignore the Maru goats talks since most of them have no idea what they are talking about. World championship and Dominancr over his/her peers is how we measure greatness. Not some silly overrated GSL the few fans are desperately holding onto for argument sakes
MVP is a top 20 players of all time. WOL was disgusting overpower for terrans.
Anyways big thanks for the in depth analyze, which pretty much sums up everything
On July 24 2024 00:04 ejozl wrote: So the reason for me that Serral isn't necessarily the goat is this: For me tournament result is the only objective measure of balance, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much you crush the other guy, it is about taking home the trophy. The results should be how you leave your mark on the game. Rogue punching above his weight class is just as impressive, as were it the case that he always played at this level, even on ladder. This was the same for Stats, the best Toss of LotV, he was infamously low on the ladder. It was the opposite for sOs, everyone and their mother feared sOs, but when it came to the tournament, in LotV that is, he would falter.
You didn't counter the balance issue properly, not that you HAVE to address this issue, you could say that if you look at it objectively, this means that you should disregard balance. But honestly, you said that if you remove Maru and Serral the biggest outliers. that the game would be pretty damned balance. If you remove herO, Protoss as a race didn't win GSL, or a higher tier caliber tournament since, after 2017. The list of players who did, excluding herO, Maru and Serral are: Oliveira, Solar, Cure, Gumiho, SoO, Scarlett, INnoVation, Dark, Reynor, Rogue and TY. 11 players and no Protoss. I wouldn't fault a person for simply excluding 2018+ years out of the GOAT debate, simply because it holds little value to be the GOAT of a 2x race game.
The argument for Serral not playing the most competitive era is tough. If SC2 almost died, but the online competitive scene continued with Maxpax dominating it for 50 years. People would argue that maxpax would be the GOAT, but the time that he played would've been simply too different, so who's really to say.
Let me write the timeline for GOATage: MC/MVP -> Life -> sOs -> INnoVation -> Maru -> Serral
You can argue some names should be here or there, but the overarching picture is like this. So, if we say that the end of HotS is the peak of competitiveness then that removes MC/MVP. So now it is a spectrum of how much you value the time from after the Kespa abandonment. If you say life is meaningless after Kespa, Life is your GOAT, if you still value the era up and including to 2017, then INnoVation is your GOAT, then there is 2020+ where Blizzcon wasn't there anymore and so on and depending on how much you value the different scenes you could put either Life, sOs, INnoVation, Maru or Serral as your GOAT. If you do put Serral, Maru and Rogue in the top 3, as most people do, with possibly Dark, or INnoVation as the 4th spot, then I would consider Serral the GOAT, since the scene that includes Serral, Rogue and Maru is from 2017+. And wouldn't this in turn make 2017+ the most valuable era?, you could argue that Life couldn't be the GOAT because he didn't get to witness the Serral, Rogue and Maru peaks.
So based on your observation that Protoss has no wins in high tier tournaments: Does that mean that neither a Terran nor Zerg can be GOAT? But you realize that even under the assumption that Protoss could not win (assuming T and Z were more or less balanced), a T or Z would still have to beat the other race and mirrors?
I am gathering more data on balance and era, so give me some time. I'll definitely address this better next time.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
In my opinion the poll is layed out wrongly. Because most people who are against Serral mostly argue about era. Meaning even if their GOAT was Mvp, they would much more likely settle with Maru.
From what I learned (having written a couple of pieces on reddit and one here): Life, Mvp and Maru are the names people drop.
I will prepare another article, where I will prepare Life's and Mvp's numbers in perfect alignment with my previous list and will also add some data to more accurately pin down era-variance.
But for the next poll: Put these 4 on... It is my intuition that Maru's votes will go down much more than Serral's (or people, as they now have read this will troll me and still vote Maru )
Yes, even if serral and maru dominated and zvz,tvt,tvz is perfectly balanced and that 2 out of the 3 matchups were balanced, it still puts a huge asterix on their reign. You yourself stated it as an impressive feat that mvp, taeja, byun, serral and innovation were the top in all of their 3 matchups. Well, if you can exclude mvp and serral out of this because of balance issues, then that means only 3 ppl achieved this: inno, byun and taeja. And you can go deeper, the way that serral plays, could he have achieved what Life did in a meta where zergs couldn't rely on surperior late game and could wax-on, wax-off every attack like some Karate kid, to achieve a sure win? I think not, but i'this also goes both ways, were perhaps Life or sOs simply lucky when they garnered their big wins, due to their gambling-like playstyles? No zerg could've won as dominantly as serral in lotv, but he could've also not dominated the way he did, playing as another race, or in a different era, and this is why winning in different eras is so impressive as well. Like I said, sOs, Life, inno, maru and serral are the best candidates for #1 goat spot, that doesn't mean that these players should all be in the top 5 though.
1. World Championships and World Championship Level events. This category includes WCS Global Finals, BlizzCons and IEM World Championships after 2018, representing the most prestigious events of the world, where the best of the best compete. This category has a multiplier of 1,1. 2. GSL Code S, OSL, SSL until 2020 come in at a value of 1. The separation to later GSLs was made due to the restructuring of the tournament after 2020 Code S season 3 where player amount and difficulty of advancing was diminished a lot. 3. ESL Masters as well as DreamHack Season Finals from 2020 onwards, Master’s Coliseum. In contrast to Mizenhauer I devalued these events slightly in comparison to Code S, OSL and SSL. Although DH Last Chance 2022 (won by Maru), DH Last Chance 2021 (Serral 2nd place) as well as Master’s Coliseum 6 and 7 (both won by Serral) could have easily been upgraded to category 2 as the average player rank was simply absurd. MC6 had an Ro8 average of 4,75 and MC7 of 5,75 with 4,5 being the lowest possible score. These two tournaments were simply filled with the best the world had to offer until the very last moment. But out of respect to the old era (which again is a small added buff to this time) I devalued this category slightly at 0,95. This decision again disfaors Serral the most. 4. GSL Code S 2021 and following, GSL vs the World, WESG. The WESG should have been positioned in category 5 according to the involved players in Ro16 and Ro8 but was given an upward correction to category 4, as the prize pool was insane. GSL vs the world was corrected downward from category 3. Although the best of the world competed, the tournament structure was rather simple and it is widely regarded as a “show tournament” despite the best of the world attending. This category is a good example of my thought processes as for example 2013 DreamHack Open: Bucharest was corrected upward as only one player lowered the average score immensely. Lastly: 2013 WCS Season 1 was corrected upwards for era-reasonings, as it would have been placed in category 6 following the average player count. Category 4 is valued 0,8. 5. Category 5 includes random events such as King of Battles, miscellaneous Afreeca TV tournaments or ESL Masters locked regionals. Value: 0,85. 6. Mostly region-locked ESLs and HomeStoryCups which see another sharp decrease in value: 0,7. 7. This category only includes the Gold Professional Championship 2019 Season 1, which has the worst Ro16 and Ro8 ratings (86,38 and 44,75) as well as low price money. Nothing to write home about… sorry INnoVation, I can only multiply this tournament at 0,5.
Is there an error (bolded) in either relative values of Category 4 and Category 5 relative weights? Is it just typo in the text, or is that error also included to the math?
Not that it would make one iota difference in the big picture, but asking for clarity, as one would expect Cat 4 being weighted higher than Cat 5.
Good catch! Yeah, I fucked up while writing it down... the "code" (my excel sheet) has it correctly as there, everything is standing neatly below each other. Will change it.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
E: just for kicks, went ahead and found a sample size calculator at 95% confidence level. Assuming a population of 100, the sample size would need to be 80; for 1000 it'd be 278; and for 10,000 it'd be 370
Currently at 56. Serral is at nearly 80%… Dominating just like every other measurable metric.
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
Lowko did a poll on X, including 27 thousands people and Serral still has 80%, more sample size more advantage for Serral
To be fair... I don't think too many Koreans participated in that vote But then again... how many Koreans hear about viable pro-Serral arguments. Does anyone know what the overall Korean take on the GOAT-issue is?
On July 24 2024 00:04 ejozl wrote: So the reason for me that Serral isn't necessarily the goat is this: For me tournament result is the only objective measure of balance, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much you crush the other guy, it is about taking home the trophy. The results should be how you leave your mark on the game. Rogue punching above his weight class is just as impressive, as were it the case that he always played at this level, even on ladder. This was the same for Stats, the best Toss of LotV, he was infamously low on the ladder. It was the opposite for sOs, everyone and their mother feared sOs, but when it came to the tournament, in LotV that is, he would falter.
You didn't counter the balance issue properly, not that you HAVE to address this issue, you could say that if you look at it objectively, this means that you should disregard balance. But honestly, you said that if you remove Maru and Serral the biggest outliers. that the game would be pretty damned balance. If you remove herO, Protoss as a race didn't win GSL, or a higher tier caliber tournament since, after 2017. The list of players who did, excluding herO, Maru and Serral are: Oliveira, Solar, Cure, Gumiho, SoO, Scarlett, INnoVation, Dark, Reynor, Rogue and TY. 11 players and no Protoss. I wouldn't fault a person for simply excluding 2018+ years out of the GOAT debate, simply because it holds little value to be the GOAT of a 2x race game.
The argument for Serral not playing the most competitive era is tough. If SC2 almost died, but the online competitive scene continued with Maxpax dominating it for 50 years. People would argue that maxpax would be the GOAT, but the time that he played would've been simply too different, so who's really to say.
Let me write the timeline for GOATage: MC/MVP -> Life -> sOs -> INnoVation -> Maru -> Serral
You can argue some names should be here or there, but the overarching picture is like this. So, if we say that the end of HotS is the peak of competitiveness then that removes MC/MVP. So now it is a spectrum of how much you value the time from after the Kespa abandonment. If you say life is meaningless after Kespa, Life is your GOAT, if you still value the era up and including to 2017, then INnoVation is your GOAT, then there is 2020+ where Blizzcon wasn't there anymore and so on and depending on how much you value the different scenes you could put either Life, sOs, INnoVation, Maru or Serral as your GOAT. If you do put Serral, Maru and Rogue in the top 3, as most people do, with possibly Dark, or INnoVation as the 4th spot, then I would consider Serral the GOAT, since the scene that includes Serral, Rogue and Maru is from 2017+. And wouldn't this in turn make 2017+ the most valuable era?, you could argue that Life couldn't be the GOAT because he didn't get to witness the Serral, Rogue and Maru peaks.
So based on your observation that Protoss has no wins in high tier tournaments: Does that mean that neither a Terran nor Zerg can be GOAT? But you realize that even under the assumption that Protoss could not win (assuming T and Z were more or less balanced), a T or Z would still have to beat the other race and mirrors?
I am gathering more data on balance and era, so give me some time. I'll definitely address this better next time.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
In my opinion the poll is layed out wrongly. Because most people who are against Serral mostly argue about era. Meaning even if their GOAT was Mvp, they would much more likely settle with Maru.
From what I learned (having written a couple of pieces on reddit and one here): Life, Mvp and Maru are the names people drop.
I will prepare another article, where I will prepare Life's and Mvp's numbers in perfect alignment with my previous list and will also add some data to more accurately pin down era-variance.
But for the next poll: Put these 4 on... It is my intuition that Maru's votes will go down much more than Serral's (or people, as they now have read this will troll me and still vote Maru )
Yes, even if serral and maru dominated and zvz,tvt,tvz is perfectly balanced and that 2 out of the 3 matchups were balanced, it still puts a huge asterix on their reign. You yourself stated it as an impressive feat that mvp, taeja, byun, serral and innovation were the top in all of their 3 matchups. Well, if you can exclude mvp and serral out of this because of balance issues, then that means only 3 ppl achieved this: inno, byun and taeja. And you can go deeper, the way that serral plays, could he have achieved what Life did in a meta where zergs couldn't rely on surperior late game and could wax-on, wax-off every attack like some Karate kid, to achieve a sure win? I think not, but i'this also goes both ways, were perhaps Life or sOs simply lucky when they garnered their big wins, due to their gambling-like playstyles? No zerg could've won as dominantly as serral in lotv, but he could've also not dominated the way he did, playing as another race, or in a different era, and this is why winning in different eras is so impressive as well. Like I said, sOs, Life, inno, maru and serral are the best candidates for #1 goat spot, that doesn't mean that these players should all be in the top 5 though.
Serral did it in several different time periods.. I don't think that Zerg was utterly overtuned in all of them, no? From another perspective 4 out 5 are Terran and if you discard Serral and Mvp 3 out of 3.. is that indicative of a balance issue?
Many ifs in that argument. One could also say that Serral would have altered his play style. I mean everyone was saying he only plays defensive and bam, there go timing attacks. Bane ling nerf? He doesn't need them. The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
So how about your goat Maru's performance? Did he outperform Serral? Ohh yes, the last time he beat Serral in bo5+ series is in late 2021, and then: crushed by Serral in IEM 2022 crushed by Serral in KOB 8 crushed by Serral in TSL 9 smashed by Serral during 2 Master Colisems in 2023 and 2024 swept by Serral desperately in IEM 2024 ripped apart by Serral in a super duper crazy way in ESL spring.
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
I don't know about others, but I looked at match win rates versus Koreans in given years (Serral has by far the best statistics in 6 years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024, Maru is the best in 2021), the Aligulac HoF (all years), percentage of being rank 1 (all years), tournament win percentages with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, 2021 was won by Rogue by 3% in comparison to Serral. Maru was down another roughly 4% that year), average placements in tournaments with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, some of which are by a large margin, Maru 2021 very closely). I didn't calculate the efficiency score for every year as that was more a life-time metric. He had the most Premier Tournaments wins in 2018, 2019, 2020 (tied with Maru and Rogue), 2021 (tied with Rogue), 2022, 2023 and (so far) 2024.
So which statistics are you using to say that other Zerg toped him?
On July 24 2024 23:13 Blitzball04 wrote: Serral has already been the consensus among fans , casters and pros.
I usually just ignore the Maru goats talks since most of them have no idea what they are talking about. World championship and Dominancr over his/her peers is how we measure greatness. Not some silly overrated GSL the few fans are desperately holding onto for argument sakes
MVP is a top 20 players of all time. WOL was disgusting overpower for terrans.
Anyways big thanks for the in depth analyze, which pretty much sums up everything
GSL is overrated, riiight. Yet no foreigner has won one yet in all of sc2 history. You can have the opinion Serral is the Goat, that's fine, but to denigrate GSL is ridiculous.
Reynor who I consider the second best non Korean player lost in GSL I believe three times? The last two times he lost was a GSL in it's very diminished state.
The foreign scene was not relevant in terms of being competitive until 2018. Look at the GSL's through the years and how stacked they were.
Any tournament with Koreans and non Koreans, it's usually just Serral/Reynor who can really consistently beat them. GSL is still even in it's depleted state arguably still more competitive.
Oh and you said T was busted in wings, dude nothing was more busted than broodlord/infestor and probably the old swarmhosts.
1. World Championships and World Championship Level events. This category includes WCS Global Finals, BlizzCons and IEM World Championships after 2018, representing the most prestigious events of the world, where the best of the best compete. This category has a multiplier of 1,1. 2. GSL Code S, OSL, SSL until 2020 come in at a value of 1. The separation to later GSLs was made due to the restructuring of the tournament after 2020 Code S season 3 where player amount and difficulty of advancing was diminished a lot. 3. ESL Masters as well as DreamHack Season Finals from 2020 onwards, Master’s Coliseum. In contrast to Mizenhauer I devalued these events slightly in comparison to Code S, OSL and SSL. Although DH Last Chance 2022 (won by Maru), DH Last Chance 2021 (Serral 2nd place) as well as Master’s Coliseum 6 and 7 (both won by Serral) could have easily been upgraded to category 2 as the average player rank was simply absurd. MC6 had an Ro8 average of 4,75 and MC7 of 5,75 with 4,5 being the lowest possible score. These two tournaments were simply filled with the best the world had to offer until the very last moment. But out of respect to the old era (which again is a small added buff to this time) I devalued this category slightly at 0,95. This decision again disfaors Serral the most. 4. GSL Code S 2021 and following, GSL vs the World, WESG. The WESG should have been positioned in category 5 according to the involved players in Ro16 and Ro8 but was given an upward correction to category 4, as the prize pool was insane. GSL vs the world was corrected downward from category 3. Although the best of the world competed, the tournament structure was rather simple and it is widely regarded as a “show tournament” despite the best of the world attending. This category is a good example of my thought processes as for example 2013 DreamHack Open: Bucharest was corrected upward as only one player lowered the average score immensely. Lastly: 2013 WCS Season 1 was corrected upwards for era-reasonings, as it would have been placed in category 6 following the average player count. Category 4 is valued 0,8. 5. Category 5 includes random events such as King of Battles, miscellaneous Afreeca TV tournaments or ESL Masters locked regionals. Value: 0,85. 6. Mostly region-locked ESLs and HomeStoryCups which see another sharp decrease in value: 0,7. 7. This category only includes the Gold Professional Championship 2019 Season 1, which has the worst Ro16 and Ro8 ratings (86,38 and 44,75) as well as low price money. Nothing to write home about… sorry INnoVation, I can only multiply this tournament at 0,5.
Is there an error (bolded) in either relative values of Category 4 and Category 5 relative weights? Is it just typo in the text, or is that error also included to the math?
Not that it would make one iota difference in the big picture, but asking for clarity, as one would expect Cat 4 being weighted higher than Cat 5.
Good catch! Yeah, I fucked up while writing it down... the "code" (my excel sheet) has it correctly as there, everything is standing neatly below each other. Will change it.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
E: just for kicks, went ahead and found a sample size calculator at 95% confidence level. Assuming a population of 100, the sample size would need to be 80; for 1000 it'd be 278; and for 10,000 it'd be 370
Currently at 56. Serral is at nearly 80%… Dominating just like every other measurable metric.
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
Lowko did a poll on X, including 27 thousands people and Serral still has 80%, more sample size more advantage for Serral
To be fair... I don't think too many Koreans participated in that vote But then again... how many Koreans hear about viable pro-Serral arguments. Does anyone know what the overall Korean take on the GOAT-issue is?
On July 24 2024 00:04 ejozl wrote: So the reason for me that Serral isn't necessarily the goat is this: For me tournament result is the only objective measure of balance, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much you crush the other guy, it is about taking home the trophy. The results should be how you leave your mark on the game. Rogue punching above his weight class is just as impressive, as were it the case that he always played at this level, even on ladder. This was the same for Stats, the best Toss of LotV, he was infamously low on the ladder. It was the opposite for sOs, everyone and their mother feared sOs, but when it came to the tournament, in LotV that is, he would falter.
You didn't counter the balance issue properly, not that you HAVE to address this issue, you could say that if you look at it objectively, this means that you should disregard balance. But honestly, you said that if you remove Maru and Serral the biggest outliers. that the game would be pretty damned balance. If you remove herO, Protoss as a race didn't win GSL, or a higher tier caliber tournament since, after 2017. The list of players who did, excluding herO, Maru and Serral are: Oliveira, Solar, Cure, Gumiho, SoO, Scarlett, INnoVation, Dark, Reynor, Rogue and TY. 11 players and no Protoss. I wouldn't fault a person for simply excluding 2018+ years out of the GOAT debate, simply because it holds little value to be the GOAT of a 2x race game.
The argument for Serral not playing the most competitive era is tough. If SC2 almost died, but the online competitive scene continued with Maxpax dominating it for 50 years. People would argue that maxpax would be the GOAT, but the time that he played would've been simply too different, so who's really to say.
Let me write the timeline for GOATage: MC/MVP -> Life -> sOs -> INnoVation -> Maru -> Serral
You can argue some names should be here or there, but the overarching picture is like this. So, if we say that the end of HotS is the peak of competitiveness then that removes MC/MVP. So now it is a spectrum of how much you value the time from after the Kespa abandonment. If you say life is meaningless after Kespa, Life is your GOAT, if you still value the era up and including to 2017, then INnoVation is your GOAT, then there is 2020+ where Blizzcon wasn't there anymore and so on and depending on how much you value the different scenes you could put either Life, sOs, INnoVation, Maru or Serral as your GOAT. If you do put Serral, Maru and Rogue in the top 3, as most people do, with possibly Dark, or INnoVation as the 4th spot, then I would consider Serral the GOAT, since the scene that includes Serral, Rogue and Maru is from 2017+. And wouldn't this in turn make 2017+ the most valuable era?, you could argue that Life couldn't be the GOAT because he didn't get to witness the Serral, Rogue and Maru peaks.
So based on your observation that Protoss has no wins in high tier tournaments: Does that mean that neither a Terran nor Zerg can be GOAT? But you realize that even under the assumption that Protoss could not win (assuming T and Z were more or less balanced), a T or Z would still have to beat the other race and mirrors?
I am gathering more data on balance and era, so give me some time. I'll definitely address this better next time.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
In my opinion the poll is layed out wrongly. Because most people who are against Serral mostly argue about era. Meaning even if their GOAT was Mvp, they would much more likely settle with Maru.
From what I learned (having written a couple of pieces on reddit and one here): Life, Mvp and Maru are the names people drop.
I will prepare another article, where I will prepare Life's and Mvp's numbers in perfect alignment with my previous list and will also add some data to more accurately pin down era-variance.
But for the next poll: Put these 4 on... It is my intuition that Maru's votes will go down much more than Serral's (or people, as they now have read this will troll me and still vote Maru )
Yes, even if serral and maru dominated and zvz,tvt,tvz is perfectly balanced and that 2 out of the 3 matchups were balanced, it still puts a huge asterix on their reign. You yourself stated it as an impressive feat that mvp, taeja, byun, serral and innovation were the top in all of their 3 matchups. Well, if you can exclude mvp and serral out of this because of balance issues, then that means only 3 ppl achieved this: inno, byun and taeja. And you can go deeper, the way that serral plays, could he have achieved what Life did in a meta where zergs couldn't rely on surperior late game and could wax-on, wax-off every attack like some Karate kid, to achieve a sure win? I think not, but i'this also goes both ways, were perhaps Life or sOs simply lucky when they garnered their big wins, due to their gambling-like playstyles? No zerg could've won as dominantly as serral in lotv, but he could've also not dominated the way he did, playing as another race, or in a different era, and this is why winning in different eras is so impressive as well. Like I said, sOs, Life, inno, maru and serral are the best candidates for #1 goat spot, that doesn't mean that these players should all be in the top 5 though.
Serral did it in several different time periods.. I don't think that Zerg was utterly overtuned in all of them, no? From another perspective 4 out 5 are Terran and if you discard Serral and Mvp 3 out of 3.. is that indicative of a balance issue?
Many ifs in that argument. One could also say that Serral would have altered his play style. I mean everyone was saying he only plays defensive and bam, there go timing attacks. Bane ling nerf? He doesn't need them. The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
It's not so much that zerg was necessarily OP during this period, but we can say now in hindsight that Protoss has been a non-issue for top players since 2018. I know for a fact that Maru, as well as innovation always had a weakness for protoss bullshit strats, but since P couldn't win with this anymore, maru dominance went to the next level. Who knows, if P was favoured late game zvp serral might've consistently lost to stats and neeb's protoss. That byun, taeja and innovation are all terrans doesn't much point towards imbalance, though there might have been a small period, byun especially. Inno and taeja played in terran weak, or terran even eras, though inno played for long, so i cannot exclude that there was t favoured metas, but it can also point toward that terran, with good enough mechanics can overcome all three matchups, and it can also just have been a coincidink.
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
I don't know about others, but I looked at match win rates versus Koreans in given years (Serral has by far the best statistics in 6 years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024, Maru is the best in 2021), the Aligulac HoF (all years), percentage of being rank 1 (all years), tournament win percentages with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, 2021 was won by Rogue by 3% in comparison to Serral. Maru was down another roughly 4% that year), average placements in tournaments with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, some of which are by a large margin, Maru 2021 very closely). I didn't calculate the efficiency score for every year as that was more a life-time metric. He had the most Premier Tournaments wins in 2018, 2019, 2020 (tied with Maru and Rogue), 2021 (tied with Rogue), 2022, 2023 and (so far) 2024.
So which statistics are you using to say that other Zerg toped him?
Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
I don't know about others, but I looked at match win rates versus Koreans in given years (Serral has by far the best statistics in 6 years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024, Maru is the best in 2021), the Aligulac HoF (all years), percentage of being rank 1 (all years), tournament win percentages with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, 2021 was won by Rogue by 3% in comparison to Serral. Maru was down another roughly 4% that year), average placements in tournaments with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, some of which are by a large margin, Maru 2021 very closely). I didn't calculate the efficiency score for every year as that was more a life-time metric. He had the most Premier Tournaments wins in 2018, 2019, 2020 (tied with Maru and Rogue), 2021 (tied with Rogue), 2022, 2023 and (so far) 2024.
So which statistics are you using to say that other Zerg toped him?
Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
What is Serral’s average placement across this span though? And his overall win rate?
There have definitely been other Zergs who’ve had better years in that span for sure, but Serral’s probably a lock for top 3, certainly amongst Zergs anyway for most if not all of the years across that period.
I don’t think all but the most myopic Serral fanboys have ever said he’s been the outright best every year 2018 onwards, but he’s perpetually in the top 5 for results every year. And he’s two absolute monster years in 2018 and 2024
There must be an example but I can’t think of one to mind where Serral didn’t at least place Ro8, which is just ridiculous stuff
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
I don't know about others, but I looked at match win rates versus Koreans in given years (Serral has by far the best statistics in 6 years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024, Maru is the best in 2021), the Aligulac HoF (all years), percentage of being rank 1 (all years), tournament win percentages with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, 2021 was won by Rogue by 3% in comparison to Serral. Maru was down another roughly 4% that year), average placements in tournaments with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, some of which are by a large margin, Maru 2021 very closely). I didn't calculate the efficiency score for every year as that was more a life-time metric. He had the most Premier Tournaments wins in 2018, 2019, 2020 (tied with Maru and Rogue), 2021 (tied with Rogue), 2022, 2023 and (so far) 2024.
So which statistics are you using to say that other Zerg toped him?
Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
What is Serral’s average placement across this span though? And his overall win rate?
There have definitely been other Zergs who’ve had better years in that span for sure, but Serral’s probably a lock for top 3, certainly amongst Zergs anyway for most if not all of the years across that period.
I don’t think all but the most myopic Serral fanboys have ever said he’s been the outright best every year 2018 onwards, but he’s perpetually in the top 5 for results every year. And he’s two absolute monster years in 2018 and 2024
There must be an example but I can’t think of one to mind where Serral didn’t at least place Ro8, which is just ridiculous stuff
For sure his winrate and placements were high in the vast majority of tournaments since 2018. Off the top of my head the counterexample that comes to mind is when he didn't make esl finals 'cause he didn't place deep enough in esl europe. This is probably confirmation bias on my end though 'cause I feel like I've seen a fair number of people make that very claim: outright best since 2018. And I think the word "dominate" just didn't sit right. When I think domination I think you're the best and it's not even close. If it's competitive or debatable you're not dominating
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
I don't know about others, but I looked at match win rates versus Koreans in given years (Serral has by far the best statistics in 6 years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024, Maru is the best in 2021), the Aligulac HoF (all years), percentage of being rank 1 (all years), tournament win percentages with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, 2021 was won by Rogue by 3% in comparison to Serral. Maru was down another roughly 4% that year), average placements in tournaments with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, some of which are by a large margin, Maru 2021 very closely). I didn't calculate the efficiency score for every year as that was more a life-time metric. He had the most Premier Tournaments wins in 2018, 2019, 2020 (tied with Maru and Rogue), 2021 (tied with Rogue), 2022, 2023 and (so far) 2024.
So which statistics are you using to say that other Zerg toped him?
Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
What is Serral’s average placement across this span though? And his overall win rate?
There have definitely been other Zergs who’ve had better years in that span for sure, but Serral’s probably a lock for top 3, certainly amongst Zergs anyway for most if not all of the years across that period.
I don’t think all but the most myopic Serral fanboys have ever said he’s been the outright best every year 2018 onwards, but he’s perpetually in the top 5 for results every year. And he’s two absolute monster years in 2018 and 2024
There must be an example but I can’t think of one to mind where Serral didn’t at least place Ro8, which is just ridiculous stuff
For sure his winrate and placements were high in the vast majority of tournaments since 2018. Off the top of my head the counterexample that comes to mind is when he didn't make esl finals 'cause he didn't place deep enough in esl europe. This is probably confirmation bias on my end though 'cause I feel like I've seen a fair number of people make that very claim: outright best since 2018. And I think the word "dominate" just didn't sit right. When I think domination I think you're the best and it's not even close. If it's competitive or debatable you're not dominating
Yeah I think it’s fair to not use the dominant label, for reasons you outline.
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
I don't know about others, but I looked at match win rates versus Koreans in given years (Serral has by far the best statistics in 6 years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024, Maru is the best in 2021), the Aligulac HoF (all years), percentage of being rank 1 (all years), tournament win percentages with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, 2021 was won by Rogue by 3% in comparison to Serral. Maru was down another roughly 4% that year), average placements in tournaments with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, some of which are by a large margin, Maru 2021 very closely). I didn't calculate the efficiency score for every year as that was more a life-time metric. He had the most Premier Tournaments wins in 2018, 2019, 2020 (tied with Maru and Rogue), 2021 (tied with Rogue), 2022, 2023 and (so far) 2024.
So which statistics are you using to say that other Zerg toped him?
Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
What is Serral’s average placement across this span though? And his overall win rate?
There have definitely been other Zergs who’ve had better years in that span for sure, but Serral’s probably a lock for top 3, certainly amongst Zergs anyway for most if not all of the years across that period.
I don’t think all but the most myopic Serral fanboys have ever said he’s been the outright best every year 2018 onwards, but he’s perpetually in the top 5 for results every year. And he’s two absolute monster years in 2018 and 2024
There must be an example but I can’t think of one to mind where Serral didn’t at least place Ro8, which is just ridiculous stuff
For sure his winrate and placements were high in the vast majority of tournaments since 2018. Off the top of my head the counterexample that comes to mind is when he didn't make esl finals 'cause he didn't place deep enough in esl europe. This is probably confirmation bias on my end though 'cause I feel like I've seen a fair number of people make that very claim: outright best since 2018. And I think the word "dominate" just didn't sit right. When I think domination I think you're the best and it's not even close. If it's competitive or debatable you're not dominating
Maybe it's because it's how I mean it, but when I see people say that I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that they mean "Serral's 2018–Present (win-rate, placements, tournament wins) is the best" rather than "in every day since 2018 he's always been the best" because the latter is so clearly wrong that it seems ridiculous that anyone would seriously argue it. Maybe I'm too generous.
Maybe it's because it's how I mean it, but when I see people say that I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that they mean "Serral's 2018–Present (win-rate, placements, tournament wins) is the best" rather than "in every day since 2018 he's always been the best" because the latter is so clearly wrong that it seems ridiculous that anyone would seriously argue it. Maybe I'm too generous.
FWIW I think it's fair. He's had the best 6.5 years out of anyone, but he's definitely not had the best year each and every year if we're talking results. Dark's 2019's been mentioned and it was a helluva year. I think Maru had a better 2020? Yet it doesn't seem unfair to say Serral's been on top for 6 years considering how much better he's been in aggregate than anyone else during this timeframe. It's like someone saying Maru's had a bad 2024 because he's only won 1 GSL and a small Chinese tourny - his overall placings have been absolute god-tier and if it weren't for that Finnish player having an even better year everyone would be going on about Maru right now (even if his placements didn't change).
The guy has been on top for 6 straight years with different map pools, patches as well as playing veterans and new talent. He adapts his play style to match the opponent (and arguably has a race that is able to do that). I don't know tbh. Too many hypotheticals to pursue... he could also be another top 20 player, who knows.
I keep seeing permutations of this statement with different ranges, some people saying 6 years, some 7, some a decade (somehow). In any event I don't know what data y'all are looking at because this is just not true. Serral's best years (by far) were 2018 and 2024, but in the years in between he definitely was not continuously on top. In that same period the other top zergs have either matched him or outperformed him. Wonder why serral's peak also coincided with rogue, dark, and reynor peaking. Surely it cannot be balance
I don't know about others, but I looked at match win rates versus Koreans in given years (Serral has by far the best statistics in 6 years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024, Maru is the best in 2021), the Aligulac HoF (all years), percentage of being rank 1 (all years), tournament win percentages with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, 2021 was won by Rogue by 3% in comparison to Serral. Maru was down another roughly 4% that year), average placements in tournaments with top Korean participation (Serral wins 6 out of 7 years, some of which are by a large margin, Maru 2021 very closely). I didn't calculate the efficiency score for every year as that was more a life-time metric. He had the most Premier Tournaments wins in 2018, 2019, 2020 (tied with Maru and Rogue), 2021 (tied with Rogue), 2022, 2023 and (so far) 2024.
So which statistics are you using to say that other Zerg toped him?
Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
Ok, so you only look at one metric (Premier Tournament wins), which is the hardest one to achieve and at which Serral has the best participation-win-rate except 2021. You further discount a couple of Serral's wins whereas Dark is able to keep his (the argument is probably region lock, versus "open"... open in brackets as it was a Korean offline event with offline qualifiers). I am not saying that Serral dominated this year, but I mean.. the guy won 4 Premier Tournaments. It ain't like he was slacking either. In 2021 he won 3 and had 4 runner-ups. Btw, I am not saying that Serral dominated every year through Premier Tournaments wins. But did you give any thought to the other metrics I laid out before?
Aligulac ranks Average placement in tournaments with top Koreans Match win rates vs top Koreans Tournament participation-win-rate with top Koreans
Because tournaments aren't the only thing one can analyze and in these metrics he distances/dominates everyone in most years (except the few I listed in my quote above).
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
Well yeah, I think this really is a bit nitpicking. I think in 2019 Dark was better and 2020-2021 Serral also wasn't THE best player, but I mean - we also say Mvp dominated WoL despite him only really dominating 2011. I think Serral is dominating since 2018 is a pretty fair statement
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
Well yeah, I think this really is a bit nitpicking. I think in 2019 Dark was better and 2020-2021 Serral also wasn't THE best player, but I mean - we also say Mvp dominated WoL despite him only really dominating 2011. I think Serral is dominating since 2018 is a pretty fair statement
Yeah, and even between MVP's GSL wins during his year of dominance, there was Nestea winning GSLs and MC too. So very fair to say that Serral has been dominating 2018-2024 in a general sense. Not necessarily each and every year but overall.
I think Serral's achievements during 2019 are pretty good, but a lot of it feels inflated by qualifiers into the next stage of the tournament, etc. I would also say Dark had a more convincing 2019 just cus the stuff he won was more high profile.
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
Well yeah, I think this really is a bit nitpicking. I think in 2019 Dark was better and 2020-2021 Serral also wasn't THE best player, but I mean - we also say Mvp dominated WoL despite him only really dominating 2011. I think Serral is dominating since 2018 is a pretty fair statement
Yeah, and even between MVP's GSL wins during his year of dominance, there was Nestea winning GSLs and MC too. So very fair to say that Serral has been dominating 2018-2024 in a general sense. Not necessarily each and every year but overall.
I think Serral's achievements during 2019 are pretty good, but a lot of it feels inflated by qualifiers into the next stage of the tournament, etc. I would also say Dark had a more convincing 2019 just cus the stuff he won was more high profile.
Alright, if we're just literally changing the meaning of words to fit our points, there is not much I can say. Dictionary defs pretty clearly equate dominate with being the best. No idea how you guys feel this confident reshaping the meaning of that word. This feels so weird. And funnily enough premobeats himself doubled down on dominating as synonym for best, e.g., noting serral's winrates against koreans since 2018. So this is the position you guys are in: you're at the same time arguing dominating somehow doesn't mean being the best in order to defend criticism of premobeats' analysis while premobeats's own words undercut your position. Wild
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
Well these poll results pretty accurately summarize what I strongly suspected. Not a HUGE sample size, but the overall numbers line up with what I’ve seen since the Miz list dropped.
What's the sample size?
E: just for kicks, went ahead and found a sample size calculator at 95% confidence level. Assuming a population of 100, the sample size would need to be 80; for 1000 it'd be 278; and for 10,000 it'd be 370
Currently at 56. Serral is at nearly 80%… Dominating just like every other measurable metric.
Again, your sample is not big enough to even represent a population of 100 people. But sure, let's throw common sense out the door and use this as another metric for serral being the goat...
Lowko did a poll on X, including 27 thousands people and Serral still has 80%, more sample size more advantage for Serral
While I assume that result is highly indicative, it is also selection biased toward foreign scene: it can be expected that there are relatively more Serral fans participating to the poll than there are Maru fans (due the forum) compared to the true ratio between them (what ever it maybe be).
I think people don’t realize that many Koreans also think Serral is the GOAT. Any time a Korean pro has been asked, their answer has been Serral in recent years. Now I don’t have a good metric or point of data for the actual Korean fans, but while the ratios might skew a bit more Maru/Inno than Serral, I would imagine Serral still sits at 65%+. I would be curious to see an actual poll from a Korean SC2 forum. Keep in mind that Lowko’s does capture Koreans fans as well, even if the ratio is a bit off.
On July 24 2024 00:04 ejozl wrote: So the reason for me that Serral isn't necessarily the goat is this: For me tournament result is the only objective measure of balance, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much you crush the other guy, it is about taking home the trophy. The results should be how you leave your mark on the game. Rogue punching above his weight class is just as impressive, as were it the case that he always played at this level, even on ladder. This was the same for Stats, the best Toss of LotV, he was infamously low on the ladder. It was the opposite for sOs, everyone and their mother feared sOs, but when it came to the tournament, in LotV that is, he would falter.
You didn't counter the balance issue properly, not that you HAVE to address this issue, you could say that if you look at it objectively, this means that you should disregard balance. But honestly, you said that if you remove Maru and Serral the biggest outliers. that the game would be pretty damned balance. If you remove herO, Protoss as a race didn't win GSL, or a higher tier caliber tournament since, after 2017. The list of players who did, excluding herO, Maru and Serral are: Oliveira, Solar, Cure, Gumiho, SoO, Scarlett, INnoVation, Dark, Reynor, Rogue and TY. 11 players and no Protoss. I wouldn't fault a person for simply excluding 2018+ years out of the GOAT debate, simply because it holds little value to be the GOAT of a 2x race game.
The argument for Serral not playing the most competitive era is tough. If SC2 almost died, but the online competitive scene continued with Maxpax dominating it for 50 years. People would argue that maxpax would be the GOAT, but the time that he played would've been simply too different, so who's really to say.
Let me write the timeline for GOATage: MC/MVP -> Life -> sOs -> INnoVation -> Maru -> Serral
You can argue some names should be here or there, but the overarching picture is like this. So, if we say that the end of HotS is the peak of competitiveness then that removes MC/MVP. So now it is a spectrum of how much you value the time from after the Kespa abandonment. If you say life is meaningless after Kespa, Life is your GOAT, if you still value the era up and including to 2017, then INnoVation is your GOAT, then there is 2020+ where Blizzcon wasn't there anymore and so on and depending on how much you value the different scenes you could put either Life, sOs, INnoVation, Maru or Serral as your GOAT. If you do put Serral, Maru and Rogue in the top 3, as most people do, with possibly Dark, or INnoVation as the 4th spot, then I would consider Serral the GOAT, since the scene that includes Serral, Rogue and Maru is from 2017+. And wouldn't this in turn make 2017+ the most valuable era?, you could argue that Life couldn't be the GOAT because he didn't get to witness the Serral, Rogue and Maru peaks.
So based on your observation that Protoss has no wins in high tier tournaments: Does that mean that neither a Terran nor Zerg can be GOAT? But you realize that even under the assumption that Protoss could not win (assuming T and Z were more or less balanced), a T or Z would still have to beat the other race and mirrors?
I am gathering more data on balance and era, so give me some time. I'll definitely address this better next time.
On July 23 2024 12:35 onPHYRE wrote: I think this discussion can be best summarized by “If you use numbers and qualitative data, it’s clear Serral is the GOAT.” If you want to discuss things that cannot be quantified then the only real competitor to Serral is Maru and depending on what you value in a GOAT and what metrics are used, you could chose either player. However if you look at all of the metrics, Serral wins most of them, which explains why the community and current pros from a pure numbers standpoint back Serral much more often.
The whole vocal minority argument comes in to play here.. I would honestly be so curious to see the answer to a true poll of people choosing who they think is the GOAT. I genuinely think it would be Serral at 65-70% of the community.
In my opinion the poll is layed out wrongly. Because most people who are against Serral mostly argue about era. Meaning even if their GOAT was Mvp, they would much more likely settle with Maru.
From what I learned (having written a couple of pieces on reddit and one here): Life, Mvp and Maru are the names people drop.
I will prepare another article, where I will prepare Life's and Mvp's numbers in perfect alignment with my previous list and will also add some data to more accurately pin down era-variance.
But for the next poll: Put these 4 on... It is my intuition that Maru's votes will go down much more than Serral's (or people, as they now have read this will troll me and still vote Maru )
I wanted to handicap Serral just like you did.. but got the same results. He dominates every category.
That’s a lot of words merely to concede you have no conceptual justification for your metrics or weighting for them, and are doubling down on excluding Proleague while including the weak Euro regionals (to be “fair” to Serral, again your words).
At this point honestly you can say you’re being “objective” one thousand times but no one other than the most die hard Serral fans will believe you.
I provided one framework to help you think about a path to redeeming some credibility after the extremely biased and subjective original article, nonsensical football analogies to justify it, etc. It’s really then up to you whether you want to take that path. Good luck!
Do you seriously not understand that giving different weighting to metrics where the same person is on top every time and another player at times doesn't even occupy 2nd spot and is placed 4th at times, does not make any sense? According to the metrics I evaluated, Maru and Serral share 1st place in one metric, while Serral has more in the others.. no amount of weighting will change that Serral comes out on top, that is why a weighting was superfluous.
After I included team matches ( I still don't think it is a good way of looking at it), Maru comes out on top in one metric. I will actually give you a weighting example later to show you how much we have to weigh Maru's achievements even more to make him somewhat come out on par (the same way I did with INnoVation and the era-amplifier, where INno would need a 300% boost to par Maru and Serral).
It is obvious who the extremely biased reader is, when you can't even acknowledge how often Serral was nerfed, yet him still coming out ahead by a milestone in most metrics, Maru often not being 2nd and that looking at team results the way I did was actually pretty sensible (especially as before I nerfed Serral heavily) AND doesn't really influence the end result all that much.
I said time and again, that I will find a fairer way to compare eras and I will include team results in an update, although the difficulties listed below need to be thought about (and I bet they won't please people who don't want to see Serral on top despite all other nerfs he received).
On July 27 2024 22:06 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah the rhethoric he uses with doing mental gymnastics in every category to twist it like he's "nerfing" Serral is hilarious. While at the same time nerfing Maru/Inno heavily by disregarding Proleague and barely talking about it hoping we wouldn't notice
On July 27 2024 21:59 rwala wrote:
Yes the result was preordained by the choice of metrics and not-so-subtle decisions like excluding achievements related to Proleague while including less impressive achievements like results in Euro regionals.
By the way I’d be careful not to concede too much with your “nerfing” and “buffing” of tournament results/era handicaps because if folks decide that they don’t care about things like Aligulac rating and only care about tournament results you will have inadvertently anointed someone other than Serral as the GOAT. This is also the peril of not justifying or weighting your metrics.
Do you two realize that 1. That this only affects one of seven metrics? 2. That if I have to include Proleague tournament wins I also have to include it in tournament win percentage which will in relation nerf the Koreans more than Serral? 3. I conceded the Proleague issue for the tournament score, although I still think that it is utterly illogical to include team achievements in an individual ranking (and not include it in other metrics, nerfing Koreans). 4. This concession leads to Maru being slightly ahead in one of 7 rankings and wouldn't change the end result at all?
Now consider the following to get a feeling on how sensible the topic team achievements is: What if a GOAT contender never played in a team? In a metric that needs you to probably live in Korea? Or someone was in a team that dragged him down? Or lifted him up? How about the occurrence when one player played only a couple of games but lost the majority? How to weight team efforts and individual ones? Because - this is mostly not true for the GOAT contenders as they more often than not lifted their teams up - what about the fact that some players who play for big teams score points because they were lifted up by their team mates? Rex for example never won a Premier Tournament by himself but one with JAGW. Is it thus really fair to include them in a 1:1 ratio? Do you see that Proleague-results were included in the match win rates, where individual scoring could be included perfectly without much thought? Some thoughts in regards to the Euro regionals: Should I simply discount them all together according to you two? Is it fair that Serral simply gets axed all of his individual efforts from Europe? Does he get some kind of trade-of for the invested time? Is heavily penalizing Euro regionals in the tournament-multiplier not enough?
There are so many questions and new weightings that are subjective and would need to be figured out when including team redults in the tournament score, that I think I took the most sensible approach. You two act as if this decision comes out of the blue, don't mention the incredible nerfs Serral received and act like this Proleague issue would change anything in the end. Seriously, the bias is dripping out of each and every sentence at this moment, if you can't appreciate the honest thought I gave this whole topic. Further, as we already know, this is a tiny portion of one metric, which will not change the end result by much, although it will of course affect all players with shorter careers and ones that did not play in Korea (Mvp will probably score a lower tournament score in relation as well... just saying )
PS: rwala said that "At this point honestly you can say you’re being “objective” one thousand times but no one other than the most die hard Serral fans will believe you. " Some of the people defending my article didn't strike me as die-hard fans. Just saying, as this probably says more about how you look at the article in contrast to my supposed intentions writing it or the perceived flaws (Which I don't deny exist... I never said it was perfect).
PPS: I would like to say to you two, that I want to continue here without accusations floating around that imply any preordained winner or implications that make it seem like I tried to sneak in or tinker with any of the weightings or results (then I will shut up about bias as well). These are subjective, unprovable accusations and to be honest, I don't see the necessity to rely on such tactics. If you see issues with the decisions or weightings I made, simply point them out. I described in detail my thought processes and weighting considerations to avoid exactly such accusations. Cheers!
You two (as well as anyone else) are invited to join me in a discussion about weighing the team results.
That’s a lot of words merely to concede you have no conceptual justification for your metrics or weighting for them, and are doubling down on excluding Proleague while including the weak Euro regionals (to be “fair” to Serral, again your words).
At this point honestly you can say you’re being “objective” one thousand times but no one other than the most die hard Serral fans will believe you.
I provided one framework to help you think about a path to redeeming some credibility after the extremely biased and subjective original article, nonsensical football analogies to justify it, etc. It’s really then up to you whether you want to take that path. Good luck!
Do you seriously not understand that giving different weighting to metrics where the same person is on top every time and another player at times doesn't even occupy 2nd spot and is placed 4th at times, does not make any sense? According to the metrics I evaluated, Maru and Serral share 1st place in one metric, while Serral has more in the others.. no amount of weighting will change that Serral comes out on top, that is why a weighting was superfluous.
After I included team matches ( I still don't think it is a good way of looking at it), Maru comes out on top in one metric. I will actually give you a weighting example later to show you how much we have to weigh Maru's achievements even more to make him somewhat come out on par (the same way I did with INnoVation and the era-amplifier, where INno would need a 300% boost to par Maru and Serral).
It is obvious who the extremely biased reader is, when you can't even acknowledge how often Serral was nerfed, yet him still coming out ahead by a milestone in most metrics, Maru often not being 2nd and that looking at team results the way I did was actually pretty sensible (especially as before I nerfed Serral heavily) AND doesn't really influence the end result all that much.
I said time and again, that I will find a fairer way to compare eras and I will include team results in an update, although the difficulties listed below need to be thought about (and I bet they won't please people who don't want to see Serral on top despite all other nerfs he received).
On July 27 2024 22:06 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah the rhethoric he uses with doing mental gymnastics in every category to twist it like he's "nerfing" Serral is hilarious. While at the same time nerfing Maru/Inno heavily by disregarding Proleague and barely talking about it hoping we wouldn't notice
Yes the result was preordained by the choice of metrics and not-so-subtle decisions like excluding achievements related to Proleague while including less impressive achievements like results in Euro regionals.
By the way I’d be careful not to concede too much with your “nerfing” and “buffing” of tournament results/era handicaps because if folks decide that they don’t care about things like Aligulac rating and only care about tournament results you will have inadvertently anointed someone other than Serral as the GOAT. This is also the peril of not justifying or weighting your metrics.
Do you two realize that 1. That this only affects one of seven metrics? 2. That if I have to include Proleague tournament wins I also have to include it in tournament win percentage which will in relation nerf the Koreans more than Serral? 3. I conceded the Proleague issue for the tournament score, although I still think that it is utterly illogical to include team achievements in an individual ranking (and not include it in other metrics, nerfing Koreans). 4. This concession leads to Maru being slightly ahead in one of 7 rankings and wouldn't change the end result at all?
Now consider the following to get a feeling on how sensible the topic team achievements is: What if a GOAT contender never played in a team? In a metric that needs you to probably live in Korea? Or someone was in a team that dragged him down? Or lifted him up? How about the occurrence when one player played only a couple of games but lost the majority? How to weight team efforts and individual ones? Because - this is mostly not true for the GOAT contenders as they more often than not lifted their teams up - what about the fact that some players who play for big teams score points because they were lifted up by their team mates? Rex for example never won a Premier Tournament by himself but one with JAGW. Is it thus really fair to include them in a 1:1 ratio? Do you see that Proleague-results were included in the match win rates, where individual scoring could be included perfectly without much thought? Some thoughts in regards to the Euro regionals: Should I simply discount them all together according to you two? Is it fair that Serral simply gets axed all of his individual efforts from Europe? Does he get some kind of trade-of for the invested time? Is heavily penalizing Euro regionals in the tournament-multiplier not enough?
There are so many questions and new weightings that are subjective and would need to be figured out when including team redults in the tournament score, that I think I took the most sensible approach. You two act as if this decision comes out of the blue, don't mention the incredible nerfs Serral received and act like this Proleague issue would change anything in the end. Seriously, the bias is dripping out of each and every sentence at this moment, if you can't appreciate the honest thought I gave this whole topic. Further, as we already know, this is a tiny portion of one metric, which will not change the end result by much, although it will of course affect all players with shorter careers and ones that did not play in Korea (Mvp will probably score a lower tournament score in relation as well... just saying )
PS: rwala said that "At this point honestly you can say you’re being “objective” one thousand times but no one other than the most die hard Serral fans will believe you. " Some of the people defending my article didn't strike me as die-hard fans. Just saying, as this probably says more about how you look at the article in contrast to my supposed intentions writing it or the perceived flaws (Which I don't deny exist... I never said it was perfect).
PPS: I would like to say to you two, that I want to continue here without accusations floating around that imply any preordained winner or implications that make it seem like I tried to sneak in or tinker with any of the weightings or results (then I will shut up about bias as well). These are subjective, unprovable accusations and to be honest, I don't see the necessity to rely on such tactics. If you see issues with the decisions or weightings I made, simply point them out. I described in detail my thought processes and weighting considerations to avoid exactly such accusations. Cheers!
You two (as well as anyone else) are invited to join me in a discussion about weighing the team results.
Proleague, specifically, was worth a lot in my evaluation. Proleague only existed for a few years, but it was the top priority for players on KeSPA teams and there's a ton of overlap between successful Proleague players (Zest, Maru, Inno, Stats, sOs etc) and those who had stellar individual careers.
That’s a lot of words merely to concede you have no conceptual justification for your metrics or weighting for them, and are doubling down on excluding Proleague while including the weak Euro regionals (to be “fair” to Serral, again your words).
At this point honestly you can say you’re being “objective” one thousand times but no one other than the most die hard Serral fans will believe you.
I provided one framework to help you think about a path to redeeming some credibility after the extremely biased and subjective original article, nonsensical football analogies to justify it, etc. It’s really then up to you whether you want to take that path. Good luck!
Do you seriously not understand that giving different weighting to metrics where the same person is on top every time and another player at times doesn't even occupy 2nd spot and is placed 4th at times, does not make any sense? According to the metrics I evaluated, Maru and Serral share 1st place in one metric, while Serral has more in the others.. no amount of weighting will change that Serral comes out on top, that is why a weighting was superfluous.
After I included team matches ( I still don't think it is a good way of looking at it), Maru comes out on top in one metric. I will actually give you a weighting example later to show you how much we have to weigh Maru's achievements even more to make him somewhat come out on par (the same way I did with INnoVation and the era-amplifier, where INno would need a 300% boost to par Maru and Serral).
It is obvious who the extremely biased reader is, when you can't even acknowledge how often Serral was nerfed, yet him still coming out ahead by a milestone in most metrics, Maru often not being 2nd and that looking at team results the way I did was actually pretty sensible (especially as before I nerfed Serral heavily) AND doesn't really influence the end result all that much.
I said time and again, that I will find a fairer way to compare eras and I will include team results in an update, although the difficulties listed below need to be thought about (and I bet they won't please people who don't want to see Serral on top despite all other nerfs he received).
On July 27 2024 22:06 Charoisaur wrote: Yeah the rhethoric he uses with doing mental gymnastics in every category to twist it like he's "nerfing" Serral is hilarious. While at the same time nerfing Maru/Inno heavily by disregarding Proleague and barely talking about it hoping we wouldn't notice
On July 27 2024 21:59 rwala wrote:
Yes the result was preordained by the choice of metrics and not-so-subtle decisions like excluding achievements related to Proleague while including less impressive achievements like results in Euro regionals.
By the way I’d be careful not to concede too much with your “nerfing” and “buffing” of tournament results/era handicaps because if folks decide that they don’t care about things like Aligulac rating and only care about tournament results you will have inadvertently anointed someone other than Serral as the GOAT. This is also the peril of not justifying or weighting your metrics.
Do you two realize that 1. That this only affects one of seven metrics? 2. That if I have to include Proleague tournament wins I also have to include it in tournament win percentage which will in relation nerf the Koreans more than Serral? 3. I conceded the Proleague issue for the tournament score, although I still think that it is utterly illogical to include team achievements in an individual ranking (and not include it in other metrics, nerfing Koreans). 4. This concession leads to Maru being slightly ahead in one of 7 rankings and wouldn't change the end result at all?
Now consider the following to get a feeling on how sensible the topic team achievements is: What if a GOAT contender never played in a team? In a metric that needs you to probably live in Korea? Or someone was in a team that dragged him down? Or lifted him up? How about the occurrence when one player played only a couple of games but lost the majority? How to weight team efforts and individual ones? Because - this is mostly not true for the GOAT contenders as they more often than not lifted their teams up - what about the fact that some players who play for big teams score points because they were lifted up by their team mates? Rex for example never won a Premier Tournament by himself but one with JAGW. Is it thus really fair to include them in a 1:1 ratio? Do you see that Proleague-results were included in the match win rates, where individual scoring could be included perfectly without much thought? Some thoughts in regards to the Euro regionals: Should I simply discount them all together according to you two? Is it fair that Serral simply gets axed all of his individual efforts from Europe? Does he get some kind of trade-of for the invested time? Is heavily penalizing Euro regionals in the tournament-multiplier not enough?
There are so many questions and new weightings that are subjective and would need to be figured out when including team redults in the tournament score, that I think I took the most sensible approach. You two act as if this decision comes out of the blue, don't mention the incredible nerfs Serral received and act like this Proleague issue would change anything in the end. Seriously, the bias is dripping out of each and every sentence at this moment, if you can't appreciate the honest thought I gave this whole topic. Further, as we already know, this is a tiny portion of one metric, which will not change the end result by much, although it will of course affect all players with shorter careers and ones that did not play in Korea (Mvp will probably score a lower tournament score in relation as well... just saying )
PS: rwala said that "At this point honestly you can say you’re being “objective” one thousand times but no one other than the most die hard Serral fans will believe you. " Some of the people defending my article didn't strike me as die-hard fans. Just saying, as this probably says more about how you look at the article in contrast to my supposed intentions writing it or the perceived flaws (Which I don't deny exist... I never said it was perfect).
PPS: I would like to say to you two, that I want to continue here without accusations floating around that imply any preordained winner or implications that make it seem like I tried to sneak in or tinker with any of the weightings or results (then I will shut up about bias as well). These are subjective, unprovable accusations and to be honest, I don't see the necessity to rely on such tactics. If you see issues with the decisions or weightings I made, simply point them out. I described in detail my thought processes and weighting considerations to avoid exactly such accusations. Cheers!
You two (as well as anyone else) are invited to join me in a discussion about weighing the team results.
Proleague, specifically, was worth a lot in my evaluation. Proleague only existed for a few years, but it was the top priority for players on KeSPA teams and there's a ton of overlap between successful Proleague players (Zest, Maru, Inno, Stats, sOs etc) and those who had stellar individual careers.
Further, the Proleague players were actively being prohibited from participating in lots of overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. That's why the top Proleague guys have less "premier" tournament wins in that era than guys like TaeJa, Polt, MMA, MC despite being mostly better. Punishing them for that and not counting the circuit they focuses on just because it's easier doesn't make sense.
But my main problem with the article is the ridicolous rhethoric where you tried to twist it like you were nerfing Serral somehow in every statistic when that's not anywhere the case, to make him appear better. Like what, only counting vs korean winrates to enable comparibility is a Serral nerf? Like don't get me wrong, Serral would be my top Goat pick too (even though just barely) by now but this article is just extremely biased written in favor of Serral (not necessarily the statistics which seem fine even though I disagree with some things, but the text).
Further, the Proleague players were actively being prohibited from participating in lots of overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. That's why the top Proleague guys have less "premier" tournament wins in that era than guys like TaeJa, Polt, MMA, MC despite being mostly better. Punishing them for that and not counting the circuit they focuses on just because it's easier doesn't make sense.
But my main problem with the article is the ridicolous rhethoric where you tried to twist it like you were nerfing Serral somehow in every statistic when that's not anywhere the case, to make him appear better. Like what, only counting vs korean winrates to enable comparibility is a Serral nerf? Like don't get me wrong, Serral would be my top Goat pick too (even though just barely) by now but this article is just extremely biased written in favor of Serral (not necessarily the statistics which seem fine even though I disagree with some things, but the text).
Ok. Just to be clear: You didn't answer when I asked if you understand the value of Proleague in the scope of the bigger discussion, the important questions when factoring in Proleague and you simply declare that I say I nerfed Serral, although you imply that I actually didn't do so.
So I didn't do any of these?
1. Serral would have gotten a match win rate buff as the Koreans also play lower tier Koreans and qualifiers and tournaments. Serral only plays the top of the top which inflates the Korean's scores. There were inflation corrections of up to 3,96% that were not used for Serral 2. The idea to only look at match win rates versus Koreans makes sense, but is there to mostly nerf Serral (for obvious reasons, but a nerf nevertheless). 3. Looking only at prime years in this regard would have also been something to make mostly Serral's (And Maru a little bit less) success be more apparent as he simply crushed it post-2018. 4. For the tournament-win-rate I only counted Serral's tournaments with top Korean participation; again a major nerf, which made sense for the comparison, but still is a nerf, nevertheless. 5. The 50% buff for pre-2018 is of course a nerf to Serral. 6. Average place achieved was also a nerf to Serral (and Rogue) as I counted only prime years which would have made INno's and Maru's results much, much worse 7. Also a 50% buff for pre-2018 in average placements. 8.Tournament score: In relation to Miz I penalized Serral's ESL Masters and DH more and made a separate category for HomeStoryCups which also meant mostly a penalty for Serral. The upward-corrections for WESG helped Maru and INno, at the same time penalizing all other players. 9. Another 50% for pre-2018. 10. I chose a 1,5:1 1st to 2nd place ratio, instead of a much more fitting 2:1 in a GOAT debut. 11. Efficiency-score: As a dividend of tournament score this was also affected by the 50%-buff for pre-2018 which only was a penalty to Serral.
So all of these do not matter, eh? And yes, of course it is a nerf to Serral, leaving foreigners out. The same way it is an understandable nerf for Koreans in favor of comparability to not count team results (which is an even more arbitrary metric where the influence of the individual is not even perfectly demonstrable, as well as many other questions which I asked in my post before this one. Which on top is a metric that only helps one Korean against Serral but in the bigger picture doesn't do much as Serral is way too good in other metrics). By the way.. this nerf was mentioned as a legit correction in the article. I only made the point after being attacked by you and rwala to list all things that have been detrimental to Serral. "It is important to mention that I ONLY looked at match win rates or tournaments where top Koreans participated. I did this because of the correct notion that it would be easier for Serral to score points in these metrics as he played in tournaments that are region-locked which have heavy influence on match win rates, placement in tournaments or the percentage of won tournaments. "
Just out of curiosity: Did you find anything else besides team matches where you think I was "unfair" towards Koreans?
Just represent those calculations without any penalties/weight added and see how much (some) people would complain then. Yes, I know it would be vain extra work. Most of your weightings, penalties are pretty good guesses for purposes to be on the safe-side, educated guesses. Yes, there are lot of arbitrary things there, but they are all set such way that Serral is the prime target to suffer from those decisions. It would be fair for Serral at least to look what those scores would look like if there are no penalties set on him.
Outrage from Maru-fans would increase at least one magnitude, if you really go on with flying the flag of fairness!!!
For example, it is very hard to defend a stance that the decline in competitiveness would be such high level that it would justify a drop to 66.7% from previous levels (100% at the peak era) in a single night that exactly happens when Serral appear as serious contender into the top competition. It is very hard to defend that level of decline within the time frame 2015-2018.
If Miz's work was the thesis, and Your's is it's anti-thesis...
Some kind of synthesis is possible when measurable and objective enough transition function emerges from the data set...
Just represent those calculations without any penalties/weight added and see how much (some) people would complain then. Yes, I know it would be vain extra work. Most of your weightings, penalties are pretty good guesses for purposes to be on the safe-side, educated guesses. Yes, there are lot of arbitrary things there, but they are all set such way that Serral is the prime target to suffer from those decisions. It would be fair for Serral at least to look what those scores would look like if there are no penalties set on him.
Outrage from Maru-fans would increase at least one magnitude, if you really go on with flying the flag of fairness!!!
For example, it is very hard to defend a stance that the decline in competitiveness would be such high level that it would justify a drop to 66.7% from previous levels (100% at the peak era) in a single night that exactly happens when Serral appear as serious contender into the top competition. It is very hard to defend that level of decline within the time frame 2015-2018.
If Miz's work was the thesis, and Your's is it's anti-thesis...
Some kind of synthesis is possible when measurable and objective enough transition function emerges from the data set...
I've been revisiting my criteria for my list and I actually figured out why Dark ended up where he is on the list . I really don't want to type it out (because it will get super long), but I can explain it in words.
(to be clear, I stand behind the prior ranking, but Dark's placement is the product of how his player profile was evaluated and I've gotten to the point where i can explain it in length).
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
Well yeah, I think this really is a bit nitpicking. I think in 2019 Dark was better and 2020-2021 Serral also wasn't THE best player, but I mean - we also say Mvp dominated WoL despite him only really dominating 2011. I think Serral is dominating since 2018 is a pretty fair statement
Yeah, and even between MVP's GSL wins during his year of dominance, there was Nestea winning GSLs and MC too. So very fair to say that Serral has been dominating 2018-2024 in a general sense. Not necessarily each and every year but overall.
I think Serral's achievements during 2019 are pretty good, but a lot of it feels inflated by qualifiers into the next stage of the tournament, etc. I would also say Dark had a more convincing 2019 just cus the stuff he won was more high profile.
Alright, if we're just literally changing the meaning of words to fit our points, there is not much I can say. Dictionary defs pretty clearly equate dominate with being the best. No idea how you guys feel this confident reshaping the meaning of that word. This feels so weird. And funnily enough premobeats himself doubled down on dominating as synonym for best, e.g., noting serral's winrates against koreans since 2018. So this is the position you guys are in: you're at the same time arguing dominating somehow doesn't mean being the best in order to defend criticism of premobeats' analysis while premobeats's own words undercut your position. Wild
I didn't say that though? I'm not saying dominating doesn't mean the best. It depends what you mean by dominating, we're not reshaping the word. MVP was the best in 2011, yes. He was dominant. But he wasn't dominant on a month to month basis.
Thus, it's fair to say Serral was dominant (the best) in the period of 2018 to 2024 because he was overall dominant, even if you think certain years players like Dark, Trap, Maru, or Rogue had a better year.
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
Well yeah, I think this really is a bit nitpicking. I think in 2019 Dark was better and 2020-2021 Serral also wasn't THE best player, but I mean - we also say Mvp dominated WoL despite him only really dominating 2011. I think Serral is dominating since 2018 is a pretty fair statement
Yeah, and even between MVP's GSL wins during his year of dominance, there was Nestea winning GSLs and MC too. So very fair to say that Serral has been dominating 2018-2024 in a general sense. Not necessarily each and every year but overall.
I think Serral's achievements during 2019 are pretty good, but a lot of it feels inflated by qualifiers into the next stage of the tournament, etc. I would also say Dark had a more convincing 2019 just cus the stuff he won was more high profile.
Alright, if we're just literally changing the meaning of words to fit our points, there is not much I can say. Dictionary defs pretty clearly equate dominate with being the best. No idea how you guys feel this confident reshaping the meaning of that word. This feels so weird. And funnily enough premobeats himself doubled down on dominating as synonym for best, e.g., noting serral's winrates against koreans since 2018. So this is the position you guys are in: you're at the same time arguing dominating somehow doesn't mean being the best in order to defend criticism of premobeats' analysis while premobeats's own words undercut your position. Wild
I didn't say that though? I'm not saying dominating doesn't mean the best. It depends what you mean by dominating, we're not reshaping the word. MVP was the best in 2011, yes. He was dominant. But he wasn't dominant on a month to month basis.
Thus, it's fair to say Serral was dominant (the best) in the period of 2018 to 2024 because he was overall dominant, even if you think certain years players like Dark, Trap, Maru, or Rogue had a better year.
I wrote an article recently that tracked where people finished in the WCS/ESL/etc standings (the ones used to determine the attendees for that years World Championship). I can just port the info over here...
These cover every player who finished in the Top 16 of any edition of the described standings (this is only tracking the KR region). These are obviously flawed as a method of divining the "player of the year" because they are missing the world championship from said year, but they are illustrative of a player's results over a longer span of time.
Further, the Proleague players were actively being prohibited from participating in lots of overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. That's why the top Proleague guys have less "premier" tournament wins in that era than guys like TaeJa, Polt, MMA, MC despite being mostly better. Punishing them for that and not counting the circuit they focuses on just because it's easier doesn't make sense.
But my main problem with the article is the ridicolous rhethoric where you tried to twist it like you were nerfing Serral somehow in every statistic when that's not anywhere the case, to make him appear better. Like what, only counting vs korean winrates to enable comparibility is a Serral nerf? Like don't get me wrong, Serral would be my top Goat pick too (even though just barely) by now but this article is just extremely biased written in favor of Serral (not necessarily the statistics which seem fine even though I disagree with some things, but the text).
Ok. Just to be clear: You didn't answer when I asked if you understand the value of Proleague in the scope of the bigger discussion, the important questions when factoring in Proleague and you simply declare that I say I nerfed Serral, although you imply that I actually didn't do so.
So I didn't do any of these?
1. Serral would have gotten a match win rate buff as the Koreans also play lower tier Koreans and qualifiers and tournaments. Serral only plays the top of the top which inflates the Korean's scores. There were inflation corrections of up to 3,96% that were not used for Serral 2. The idea to only look at match win rates versus Koreans makes sense, but is there to mostly nerf Serral (for obvious reasons, but a nerf nevertheless). 3. Looking only at prime years in this regard would have also been something to make mostly Serral's (And Maru a little bit less) success be more apparent as he simply crushed it post-2018. 4. For the tournament-win-rate I only counted Serral's tournaments with top Korean participation; again a major nerf, which made sense for the comparison, but still is a nerf, nevertheless. 5. The 50% buff for pre-2018 is of course a nerf to Serral. 6. Average place achieved was also a nerf to Serral (and Rogue) as I counted only prime years which would have made INno's and Maru's results much, much worse 7. Also a 50% buff for pre-2018 in average placements. 8.Tournament score: In relation to Miz I penalized Serral's ESL Masters and DH more and made a separate category for HomeStoryCups which also meant mostly a penalty for Serral. The upward-corrections for WESG helped Maru and INno, at the same time penalizing all other players. 9. Another 50% for pre-2018. 10. I chose a 1,5:1 1st to 2nd place ratio, instead of a much more fitting 2:1 in a GOAT debut. 11. Efficiency-score: As a dividend of tournament score this was also affected by the 50%-buff for pre-2018 which only was a penalty to Serral.
So all of these do not matter, eh? And yes, of course it is a nerf to Serral, leaving foreigners out. The same way it is an understandable nerf for Koreans in favor of comparability to not count team results (which is an even more arbitrary metric where the influence of the individual is not even perfectly demonstrable, as well as many other questions which I asked in my post before this one. Which on top is a metric that only helps one Korean against Serral but in the bigger picture doesn't do much as Serral is way too good in other metrics). By the way.. this nerf was mentioned as a legit correction in the article. I only made the point after being attacked by you and rwala to list all things that have been detrimental to Serral. "It is important to mention that I ONLY looked at match win rates or tournaments where top Koreans participated. I did this because of the correct notion that it would be easier for Serral to score points in these metrics as he played in tournaments that are region-locked which have heavy influence on match win rates, placement in tournaments or the percentage of won tournaments. "
Just out of curiosity: Did you find anything else besides team matches where you think I was "unfair" towards Koreans?
Yeah sure, with enough mental gymnastics you can pretend like anything is a Serral nerf.
Here's my attempt doing the same as you, just in Maru's favor.
1. "For the efficiency score I simply divided the Tournament score by the sum of years a player was placed 4th or above." This doesn't include Serral's weaker years (2013-2017) but it does include Maru's weaker years (2012-2017) so it's a huge nerf for Maru. 2. I compared the players aligulac rating and tournament winrate in their peak years, however did not award a bonus for their longevity which means I did not give them a bonus for achieving a high aligulac rating or finishing high in tournaments in more years than another players. This is a huge nerf to Maru as he has been a championship contender for 5 more years than Serral 3. despite the 2013-2018 era being way more competitive and the number of championship contenders and potential dark horses in tournaments being multitudes higher than in 2024, I gave the era only a 50% buff which means winning 2 tournaments in 2015 is the same as winning 3 tournaments in 2024. I gave such a low multiplier because the relative skill of players that are still active didn't decrease, seeing as Innovation continued to have the same winrates against fellow players like Zest, soO, Classic etc. This conclusion doesn't make sense because those benchmark players are affected by the same circumstances as he is (older age, responsibilities, approaching military). Therefore, this low multiplier is another nerf for Maru. 4. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 7 5. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 9 6. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 11 7. I didn't consider Proleague because that was difficult to do despite it being the most important tournaments for koreans back then with them being prohibited from playing in many overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. As Maru was a phenomenal Proleague player this is again a huge nerf for Maru. 8. I didn't adjust for racial balance because that's difficult to do. However, this is clearly a nerf to Maru as Zerg was consistently the strongest race for most of Serral's career so including racial balance would have elavated Maru 9. The idea to only look at vs korean winrates makes sense. Technically Clem and Reynor should be included as they are on the same level as top koreans, but because that's difficult to do in aligulac I didn't do it. However, that's another nerf for Maru as he has better winrates vs both than Serral. 10. I put WESG in tier 4 because it didn't have enough top players in the ro8/ro16. Yes, the korean qualifiers included all the best players in the world but I don't feel it's the same as playing them in the ro8/ro16. Therefore, this is another nerf to Maru. 11. Average place achieved: I singled out the prime years because Serral's 2013-2017 would have decreased his score very much. Looking at all years would have been favorable for Maru, therefore it's another nerf for Maru.
This is how someone would have written the section who was as Maru biased as you are Serral biased. I mean, I don't even think your statistical approach was bad at all, I appreciate it, and understand that measuring racial balance or Proleague would've been really difficult. But you don't have to pretend like you're somehow nerfing Serral in every category when you could find just as many arguments for Maru nerfs.
Further, the Proleague players were actively being prohibited from participating in lots of overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. That's why the top Proleague guys have less "premier" tournament wins in that era than guys like TaeJa, Polt, MMA, MC despite being mostly better. Punishing them for that and not counting the circuit they focuses on just because it's easier doesn't make sense.
But my main problem with the article is the ridicolous rhethoric where you tried to twist it like you were nerfing Serral somehow in every statistic when that's not anywhere the case, to make him appear better. Like what, only counting vs korean winrates to enable comparibility is a Serral nerf? Like don't get me wrong, Serral would be my top Goat pick too (even though just barely) by now but this article is just extremely biased written in favor of Serral (not necessarily the statistics which seem fine even though I disagree with some things, but the text).
Ok. Just to be clear: You didn't answer when I asked if you understand the value of Proleague in the scope of the bigger discussion, the important questions when factoring in Proleague and you simply declare that I say I nerfed Serral, although you imply that I actually didn't do so.
So I didn't do any of these?
1. Serral would have gotten a match win rate buff as the Koreans also play lower tier Koreans and qualifiers and tournaments. Serral only plays the top of the top which inflates the Korean's scores. There were inflation corrections of up to 3,96% that were not used for Serral 2. The idea to only look at match win rates versus Koreans makes sense, but is there to mostly nerf Serral (for obvious reasons, but a nerf nevertheless). 3. Looking only at prime years in this regard would have also been something to make mostly Serral's (And Maru a little bit less) success be more apparent as he simply crushed it post-2018. 4. For the tournament-win-rate I only counted Serral's tournaments with top Korean participation; again a major nerf, which made sense for the comparison, but still is a nerf, nevertheless. 5. The 50% buff for pre-2018 is of course a nerf to Serral. 6. Average place achieved was also a nerf to Serral (and Rogue) as I counted only prime years which would have made INno's and Maru's results much, much worse 7. Also a 50% buff for pre-2018 in average placements. 8.Tournament score: In relation to Miz I penalized Serral's ESL Masters and DH more and made a separate category for HomeStoryCups which also meant mostly a penalty for Serral. The upward-corrections for WESG helped Maru and INno, at the same time penalizing all other players. 9. Another 50% for pre-2018. 10. I chose a 1,5:1 1st to 2nd place ratio, instead of a much more fitting 2:1 in a GOAT debut. 11. Efficiency-score: As a dividend of tournament score this was also affected by the 50%-buff for pre-2018 which only was a penalty to Serral.
So all of these do not matter, eh? And yes, of course it is a nerf to Serral, leaving foreigners out. The same way it is an understandable nerf for Koreans in favor of comparability to not count team results (which is an even more arbitrary metric where the influence of the individual is not even perfectly demonstrable, as well as many other questions which I asked in my post before this one. Which on top is a metric that only helps one Korean against Serral but in the bigger picture doesn't do much as Serral is way too good in other metrics). By the way.. this nerf was mentioned as a legit correction in the article. I only made the point after being attacked by you and rwala to list all things that have been detrimental to Serral. "It is important to mention that I ONLY looked at match win rates or tournaments where top Koreans participated. I did this because of the correct notion that it would be easier for Serral to score points in these metrics as he played in tournaments that are region-locked which have heavy influence on match win rates, placement in tournaments or the percentage of won tournaments. "
Just out of curiosity: Did you find anything else besides team matches where you think I was "unfair" towards Koreans?
Yeah sure, with enough mental gymnastics you can pretend like anything is a Serral nerf.
Here's my attempt doing the same as you, just in Maru's favor.
1. "For the efficiency score I simply divided the Tournament score by the sum of years a player was placed 4th or above." This doesn't include Serral's weaker years (2013-2017) but it does include Maru's weaker years (2012-2017) so it's a huge nerf for Maru. 2. I compared the players aligulac rating and tournament winrate in their peak years, however did not award a bonus for their longevity which means I did not give them a bonus for achieving a high aligulac rating or finishing high in tournaments in more years than another players. This is a huge nerf to Maru as he has been a championship contender for 5 more years than Serral 3. despite the 2013-2018 era being way more competitive and the number of championship contenders and potential dark horses in tournaments being multitudes higher than in 2024, I gave the era only a 50% buff which means winning 2 tournaments in 2015 is the same as winning 3 tournaments in 2024. I gave such a low multiplier because the relative skill of players that are still active didn't decrease, seeing as Innovation continued to have the same winrates against fellow players like Zest, soO, Classic etc. This conclusion doesn't make sense because those benchmark players are affected by the same circumstances as he is (older age, responsibilities, approaching military). Therefore, this low multiplier is another nerf for Maru. 4. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 7 5. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 9 6. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 11 7. I didn't consider Proleague because that was difficult to do despite it being the most important tournaments for koreans back then with them being prohibited from playing in many overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. As Maru was a phenomenal Proleague player this is again a huge nerf for Maru. 8. I didn't adjust for racial balance because that's difficult to do. However, this is clearly a nerf to Maru as Zerg was consistently the strongest race for most of Serral's career so including racial balance would have elavated Maru 9. The idea to only look at vs korean winrates makes sense. Technically Clem and Reynor should be included as they are on the same level as top koreans, but because that's difficult to do in aligulac I didn't do it. However, that's another nerf for Maru as he has better winrates vs both than Serral. 10. I put WESG in tier 4 because it didn't have enough top players in the ro8/ro16. Yes, the korean qualifiers included all the best players in the world but I don't feel it's the same as playing them in the ro8/ro16. Therefore, this is another nerf to Maru. 11. Average place achieved: I singled out the prime years because Serral's 2013-2017 would have decreased his score very much. Looking at all years would have been favorable for Maru, therefore it's another nerf for Maru.
This is how someone would have written the section who was as Maru biased as you are Serral biased. I mean, I don't even think your statistical approach was bad at all, I appreciate it, and understand that measuring racial balance or Proleague would've been really difficult. But you don't have to pretend like you're somehow nerfing Serral in every category when you could find just as many arguments for Maru nerfs.
1. You have to decide: Either Maru's earlier years were weak and get abolished completely, or they stay and all of them get counted and you are able to praise his long career. You can't have the best of both worlds. If we discount these, we also have to discount them in the tournament score. Then Serral will be on top again, even if we include team results. 2. Why would I give a bonus for longevity in this metric, when longevity is obviously taken care of in HoF? Finishing high in tournaments is measured by average rank. And achieving a high Aligulac rating would benefit Serral much more. I don't really understand your point here. 3, 4, 5, 6. The win rates of them didn't drop versus the rest of Koreans either. Unless you assume that EVERYONE suddenly got worse, this argument doesn't make sense. You do realize that the 50% weren't the only multiplier that addressed tournaments from different eras, right? But again.. I am open to revise this when my analysis of era comparison is finished. 7. So any replies to the difficulties on how to factor in Proleague/Team results? Or how to actually do it? This still has not been addressed. 8. How would you account for that? 9. This isn't even true. Serral is better versus Reynor. But why not include MaxPax while we are at it? Cause Maru is much worse against him? You do realize how tiny the amount of matches is in the big scope? Even if one player is 5% better than another versus the same player. Also one has to take into account practicability and effect. You know what will happen if we include ever more non-Koreans and not only the ones where Maru supposedly fares better, right? I hope that settles this point. 10. You want me to put it in Category 3? The equivalent of Miz's list? Then Maru gains 0,45 points... I probably don't have to mention that Serral gains much more with a more befitting 1st to 2nd place ratio. 11. Erm. No. This would have affected Maru a lot more, as he played more tournaments in that time frame, as Serral still attended school (look at the screenshot under 6.1 to get an impression).
Many of your takes are either untrue, illogical or will nerf Maru in another way. They cannot remotely be compared to the Serral nerfs I mentioned as far as I am concerned. But I am more than happy to focus on Proleague and imbalance. The more we can agree on, the better the next list will be. Or are there more things that you think I did that were "unfair" to Koreans?
On July 30 2024 05:00 Poopi wrote: Yeah the text is funnily absurd and imo weakens the overall work with the constant « trying » to prove that the conclusion is 100% logic and factual.
It’s an attempt, and a better one than most manage to be fair
Further, the Proleague players were actively being prohibited from participating in lots of overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. That's why the top Proleague guys have less "premier" tournament wins in that era than guys like TaeJa, Polt, MMA, MC despite being mostly better. Punishing them for that and not counting the circuit they focuses on just because it's easier doesn't make sense.
But my main problem with the article is the ridicolous rhethoric where you tried to twist it like you were nerfing Serral somehow in every statistic when that's not anywhere the case, to make him appear better. Like what, only counting vs korean winrates to enable comparibility is a Serral nerf? Like don't get me wrong, Serral would be my top Goat pick too (even though just barely) by now but this article is just extremely biased written in favor of Serral (not necessarily the statistics which seem fine even though I disagree with some things, but the text).
Ok. Just to be clear: You didn't answer when I asked if you understand the value of Proleague in the scope of the bigger discussion, the important questions when factoring in Proleague and you simply declare that I say I nerfed Serral, although you imply that I actually didn't do so.
So I didn't do any of these?
1. Serral would have gotten a match win rate buff as the Koreans also play lower tier Koreans and qualifiers and tournaments. Serral only plays the top of the top which inflates the Korean's scores. There were inflation corrections of up to 3,96% that were not used for Serral 2. The idea to only look at match win rates versus Koreans makes sense, but is there to mostly nerf Serral (for obvious reasons, but a nerf nevertheless). 3. Looking only at prime years in this regard would have also been something to make mostly Serral's (And Maru a little bit less) success be more apparent as he simply crushed it post-2018. 4. For the tournament-win-rate I only counted Serral's tournaments with top Korean participation; again a major nerf, which made sense for the comparison, but still is a nerf, nevertheless. 5. The 50% buff for pre-2018 is of course a nerf to Serral. 6. Average place achieved was also a nerf to Serral (and Rogue) as I counted only prime years which would have made INno's and Maru's results much, much worse 7. Also a 50% buff for pre-2018 in average placements. 8.Tournament score: In relation to Miz I penalized Serral's ESL Masters and DH more and made a separate category for HomeStoryCups which also meant mostly a penalty for Serral. The upward-corrections for WESG helped Maru and INno, at the same time penalizing all other players. 9. Another 50% for pre-2018. 10. I chose a 1,5:1 1st to 2nd place ratio, instead of a much more fitting 2:1 in a GOAT debut. 11. Efficiency-score: As a dividend of tournament score this was also affected by the 50%-buff for pre-2018 which only was a penalty to Serral.
So all of these do not matter, eh? And yes, of course it is a nerf to Serral, leaving foreigners out. The same way it is an understandable nerf for Koreans in favor of comparability to not count team results (which is an even more arbitrary metric where the influence of the individual is not even perfectly demonstrable, as well as many other questions which I asked in my post before this one. Which on top is a metric that only helps one Korean against Serral but in the bigger picture doesn't do much as Serral is way too good in other metrics). By the way.. this nerf was mentioned as a legit correction in the article. I only made the point after being attacked by you and rwala to list all things that have been detrimental to Serral. "It is important to mention that I ONLY looked at match win rates or tournaments where top Koreans participated. I did this because of the correct notion that it would be easier for Serral to score points in these metrics as he played in tournaments that are region-locked which have heavy influence on match win rates, placement in tournaments or the percentage of won tournaments. "
Just out of curiosity: Did you find anything else besides team matches where you think I was "unfair" towards Koreans?
Yeah sure, with enough mental gymnastics you can pretend like anything is a Serral nerf.
Here's my attempt doing the same as you, just in Maru's favor.
1. "For the efficiency score I simply divided the Tournament score by the sum of years a player was placed 4th or above." This doesn't include Serral's weaker years (2013-2017) but it does include Maru's weaker years (2012-2017) so it's a huge nerf for Maru. 2. I compared the players aligulac rating and tournament winrate in their peak years, however did not award a bonus for their longevity which means I did not give them a bonus for achieving a high aligulac rating or finishing high in tournaments in more years than another players. This is a huge nerf to Maru as he has been a championship contender for 5 more years than Serral 3. despite the 2013-2018 era being way more competitive and the number of championship contenders and potential dark horses in tournaments being multitudes higher than in 2024, I gave the era only a 50% buff which means winning 2 tournaments in 2015 is the same as winning 3 tournaments in 2024. I gave such a low multiplier because the relative skill of players that are still active didn't decrease, seeing as Innovation continued to have the same winrates against fellow players like Zest, soO, Classic etc. This conclusion doesn't make sense because those benchmark players are affected by the same circumstances as he is (older age, responsibilities, approaching military). Therefore, this low multiplier is another nerf for Maru. 4. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 7 5. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 9 6. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 11 7. I didn't consider Proleague because that was difficult to do despite it being the most important tournaments for koreans back then with them being prohibited from playing in many overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. As Maru was a phenomenal Proleague player this is again a huge nerf for Maru. 8. I didn't adjust for racial balance because that's difficult to do. However, this is clearly a nerf to Maru as Zerg was consistently the strongest race for most of Serral's career so including racial balance would have elavated Maru 9. The idea to only look at vs korean winrates makes sense. Technically Clem and Reynor should be included as they are on the same level as top koreans, but because that's difficult to do in aligulac I didn't do it. However, that's another nerf for Maru as he has better winrates vs both than Serral. 10. I put WESG in tier 4 because it didn't have enough top players in the ro8/ro16. Yes, the korean qualifiers included all the best players in the world but I don't feel it's the same as playing them in the ro8/ro16. Therefore, this is another nerf to Maru. 11. Average place achieved: I singled out the prime years because Serral's 2013-2017 would have decreased his score very much. Looking at all years would have been favorable for Maru, therefore it's another nerf for Maru.
This is how someone would have written the section who was as Maru biased as you are Serral biased. I mean, I don't even think your statistical approach was bad at all, I appreciate it, and understand that measuring racial balance or Proleague would've been really difficult. But you don't have to pretend like you're somehow nerfing Serral in every category when you could find just as many arguments for Maru nerfs.
1. You have to decide: Either Maru's earlier years were weak and get abolished completely, or they stay and all of them get counted and you are able to praise his long career. You can't have the best of both worlds. If we discount these, we also have to discount them in the tournament score. Then Serral will be on top again, even if we include team results. 2. Why would I give a bonus for longevity in this metric, when longevity is obviously taken care of in HoF? Finishing high in tournaments is measured by average rank. And achieving a high Aligulac rating would benefit Serral much more. I don't really understand your point here. 3, 4, 5, 6. The win rates of them didn't drop versus the rest of Koreans either. Unless you assume that EVERYONE suddenly got worse, this argument doesn't make sense. You do realize that the 50% weren't the only multiplier that addressed tournaments from different eras, right? But again.. I am open to revise this when my analysis of era comparison is finished. 7. So any replies to the difficulties on how to factor in Proleague/Team results? Or how to actually do it? This still has not been addressed. 8. How would you account for that? 9. This isn't even true. Serral is better versus Reynor. But why not include MaxPax while we are at it? Cause Maru is much worse against him? You do realize how tiny the amount of matches is in the big scope? Even if one player is 5% better than another versus the same player. Also one has to take into account practicability and effect. You know what will happen if we include ever more non-Koreans and not only the ones where Maru supposedly fares better, right? I hope that settles this point. 10. You want me to put it in Category 3? The equivalent of Miz's list? Then Maru gains 0,45 points... I probably don't have to mention that Serral gains much more with a more befitting 1st to 2nd place ratio. 11. Erm. No. This would have affected Maru a lot more, as he played more tournaments in that time frame, as Serral still attended school (look at the screenshot under 6.1 to get an impression).
Many of your takes are either untrue, illogical or will nerf Maru in another way. They cannot remotely be compared to the Serral nerfs I mentioned as far as I am concerned. But I am more than happy to focus on Proleague and imbalance. The more we can agree on, the better the next list will be. Or are there more things that you think I did that were "unfair" to Koreans?
While I admire your willingness to continue running in the same circles, rwala straight up said that he prefers subjective metrics (ie he's redefined 'GOAT' as 'My favorite player'), Chariosaur's comments have run in all the same veins, and Poopi won't even engage with the content because then he'd have to state a position that could be refuted when he'd rather just chime in every few pages with a 2-line quip that allows him to maintain an air of smugness. They aren't here to discuss metrics, they're here to complain about them.
On July 30 2024 12:37 sc2turtlepants wrote: While I admire your willingness to continue running in the same circles, rwala straight up said that he prefers subjective metrics (ie he's redefined 'GOAT' as 'My favorite player'), Chariosaur's comments have run in all the same veins, and Poopi won't even engage with the content because then he'd have to state a position that could be refuted when he'd rather just chime in every few pages with a 2-line quip that allows him to maintain an air of smugness. They aren't here to discuss metrics, they're here to complain about them.
I think you summed up this merry go round perfectly.
I must admit I appreciate the fact that Charoisaur has actually changed his opinion in last year and contributes to the much more to these discussions since he can see both sides now more clearly. Thumbs up for that !
This following chapter goes to the OP::
Overall I think this discussion is starting to be at a stand still, and the same things are just being rephrased over and over again. Imo the "truth", or how do I say, the balance between two sides stands somewhere in the middle. Like Charoisaur said, the statistics part is very well done and some of the conclusions are correct. However it gets whole lot complicated when you start to adjust those statistics by one way or another. Then it becomes more of an opinion instead of pure numbers. And however "correct" that opinion might be, its always up for debate. And in the end, I think you shouldnt focus too much on trying to change what other people think, but be proud of the work you have done. Thank you for an interesting and very detailed version of the debate !
On July 30 2024 12:37 sc2turtlepants wrote: While I admire your willingness to continue running in the same circles, rwala straight up said that he prefers subjective metrics (ie he's redefined 'GOAT' as 'My favorite player'), Chariosaur's comments have run in all the same veins, and Poopi won't even engage with the content because then he'd have to state a position that could be refuted when he'd rather just chime in every few pages with a 2-line quip that allows him to maintain an air of smugness. They aren't here to discuss metrics, they're here to complain about them.
To be honest, I think complaining about things is fine to a certain extent. I re-read the article cause of the comments that said how warped in one direction it appears. I think the article is mostly fine in giving an objective statement of who was nerfed or buffed and why. But: There are 2-3 times where I went overboard and I acknowledge that. I wrote these instances like that, as from my perspective it was utterly coherent and thus the case seemed pretty solid to me (it still is, when taking into account team results, era-differences and imbalances), but I promise to do better next time in the hype-speech-department.
On July 30 2024 12:37 sc2turtlepants wrote: While I admire your willingness to continue running in the same circles, rwala straight up said that he prefers subjective metrics (ie he's redefined 'GOAT' as 'My favorite player'), Chariosaur's comments have run in all the same veins, and Poopi won't even engage with the content because then he'd have to state a position that could be refuted when he'd rather just chime in every few pages with a 2-line quip that allows him to maintain an air of smugness. They aren't here to discuss metrics, they're here to complain about them.
I think you summed up this merry go round perfectly.
I must admit I appreciate the fact that Charoisaur has actually changed his opinion in last year and contributes to the much more to these discussions since he can see both sides now more clearly. Thumbs up for that !
This following chapter goes to the OP::
Overall I think this discussion is starting to be at a stand still, and the same things are just being rephrased over and over again. Imo the "truth", or how do I say, the balance between two sides stands somewhere in the middle. Like Charoisaur said, the statistics part is very well done and some of the conclusions are correct. However it gets whole lot complicated when you start to adjust those statistics by one way or another. Then it becomes more of an opinion instead of pure numbers. And however "correct" that opinion might be, its always up for debate. And in the end, I think you shouldnt focus too much on trying to change what other people think, but be proud of the work you have done. Thank you for an interesting and very detailed version of the debate !
I agree, thus I will focus more on data gathering from now (my vacation ended yesterday anways, so my time became much more restricted). I already have ideas for the follow up (in depth imbalance analysis, era comparison, including team results, weighting the metrics, including Life and Mvp), which will address the criticism I received for this piece best in my opinion. Of course, there also will be subjective things to talk about, but I am looking forward to get an even better understanding of this topic in the future.
On July 30 2024 12:37 sc2turtlepants wrote: While I admire your willingness to continue running in the same circles, rwala straight up said that he prefers subjective metrics (ie he's redefined 'GOAT' as 'My favorite player'), Chariosaur's comments have run in all the same veins, and Poopi won't even engage with the content because then he'd have to state a position that could be refuted when he'd rather just chime in every few pages with a 2-line quip that allows him to maintain an air of smugness. They aren't here to discuss metrics, they're here to complain about them.
To be honest, I think complaining about things is fine to a certain extent. I re-read the article cause of the comments that said how warped in one direction it appears. I think the article is mostly fine in giving an objective statement of who was nerfed or buffed and why. But: There are 2-3 times where I went overboard and I acknowledge that. I wrote these instances like that, as from my perspective it was utterly coherent and thus the case seemed pretty solid to me (it still is, when taking into account team results, era-differences and imbalances), but I promise to do better next time in the hype-speech-department.
On July 30 2024 12:37 sc2turtlepants wrote: While I admire your willingness to continue running in the same circles, rwala straight up said that he prefers subjective metrics (ie he's redefined 'GOAT' as 'My favorite player'), Chariosaur's comments have run in all the same veins, and Poopi won't even engage with the content because then he'd have to state a position that could be refuted when he'd rather just chime in every few pages with a 2-line quip that allows him to maintain an air of smugness. They aren't here to discuss metrics, they're here to complain about them.
I think you summed up this merry go round perfectly.
I must admit I appreciate the fact that Charoisaur has actually changed his opinion in last year and contributes to the much more to these discussions since he can see both sides now more clearly. Thumbs up for that !
This following chapter goes to the OP::
Overall I think this discussion is starting to be at a stand still, and the same things are just being rephrased over and over again. Imo the "truth", or how do I say, the balance between two sides stands somewhere in the middle. Like Charoisaur said, the statistics part is very well done and some of the conclusions are correct. However it gets whole lot complicated when you start to adjust those statistics by one way or another. Then it becomes more of an opinion instead of pure numbers. And however "correct" that opinion might be, its always up for debate. And in the end, I think you shouldnt focus too much on trying to change what other people think, but be proud of the work you have done. Thank you for an interesting and very detailed version of the debate !
I agree, thus I will focus more on data gathering from now (my vacation ended yesterday anways, so my time became much more restricted). I already have ideas for the follow up (in depth imbalance analysis, era comparison, including team results, weighting the metrics, including Life and Mvp), which will address the criticism I received for this piece best in my opinion. Of course, there also will be subjective things to talk about, but I am looking forward to get an even better understanding of this topic in the future.
Thanks for the kind words!
Well, props for recognizing that, that's rare on the internet. I admit I maybe tried too hard with some of the points about Maru nerfs (also a bit intentionally, as I felt you were also trying hard with finding Serral nerfs). But I'm glad you recognized the point I was trying to make.
Further, the Proleague players were actively being prohibited from participating in lots of overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. That's why the top Proleague guys have less "premier" tournament wins in that era than guys like TaeJa, Polt, MMA, MC despite being mostly better. Punishing them for that and not counting the circuit they focuses on just because it's easier doesn't make sense.
But my main problem with the article is the ridicolous rhethoric where you tried to twist it like you were nerfing Serral somehow in every statistic when that's not anywhere the case, to make him appear better. Like what, only counting vs korean winrates to enable comparibility is a Serral nerf? Like don't get me wrong, Serral would be my top Goat pick too (even though just barely) by now but this article is just extremely biased written in favor of Serral (not necessarily the statistics which seem fine even though I disagree with some things, but the text).
Ok. Just to be clear: You didn't answer when I asked if you understand the value of Proleague in the scope of the bigger discussion, the important questions when factoring in Proleague and you simply declare that I say I nerfed Serral, although you imply that I actually didn't do so.
So I didn't do any of these?
1. Serral would have gotten a match win rate buff as the Koreans also play lower tier Koreans and qualifiers and tournaments. Serral only plays the top of the top which inflates the Korean's scores. There were inflation corrections of up to 3,96% that were not used for Serral 2. The idea to only look at match win rates versus Koreans makes sense, but is there to mostly nerf Serral (for obvious reasons, but a nerf nevertheless). 3. Looking only at prime years in this regard would have also been something to make mostly Serral's (And Maru a little bit less) success be more apparent as he simply crushed it post-2018. 4. For the tournament-win-rate I only counted Serral's tournaments with top Korean participation; again a major nerf, which made sense for the comparison, but still is a nerf, nevertheless. 5. The 50% buff for pre-2018 is of course a nerf to Serral. 6. Average place achieved was also a nerf to Serral (and Rogue) as I counted only prime years which would have made INno's and Maru's results much, much worse 7. Also a 50% buff for pre-2018 in average placements. 8.Tournament score: In relation to Miz I penalized Serral's ESL Masters and DH more and made a separate category for HomeStoryCups which also meant mostly a penalty for Serral. The upward-corrections for WESG helped Maru and INno, at the same time penalizing all other players. 9. Another 50% for pre-2018. 10. I chose a 1,5:1 1st to 2nd place ratio, instead of a much more fitting 2:1 in a GOAT debut. 11. Efficiency-score: As a dividend of tournament score this was also affected by the 50%-buff for pre-2018 which only was a penalty to Serral.
So all of these do not matter, eh? And yes, of course it is a nerf to Serral, leaving foreigners out. The same way it is an understandable nerf for Koreans in favor of comparability to not count team results (which is an even more arbitrary metric where the influence of the individual is not even perfectly demonstrable, as well as many other questions which I asked in my post before this one. Which on top is a metric that only helps one Korean against Serral but in the bigger picture doesn't do much as Serral is way too good in other metrics). By the way.. this nerf was mentioned as a legit correction in the article. I only made the point after being attacked by you and rwala to list all things that have been detrimental to Serral. "It is important to mention that I ONLY looked at match win rates or tournaments where top Koreans participated. I did this because of the correct notion that it would be easier for Serral to score points in these metrics as he played in tournaments that are region-locked which have heavy influence on match win rates, placement in tournaments or the percentage of won tournaments. "
Just out of curiosity: Did you find anything else besides team matches where you think I was "unfair" towards Koreans?
Yeah sure, with enough mental gymnastics you can pretend like anything is a Serral nerf.
Here's my attempt doing the same as you, just in Maru's favor.
1. "For the efficiency score I simply divided the Tournament score by the sum of years a player was placed 4th or above." This doesn't include Serral's weaker years (2013-2017) but it does include Maru's weaker years (2012-2017) so it's a huge nerf for Maru. 2. I compared the players aligulac rating and tournament winrate in their peak years, however did not award a bonus for their longevity which means I did not give them a bonus for achieving a high aligulac rating or finishing high in tournaments in more years than another players. This is a huge nerf to Maru as he has been a championship contender for 5 more years than Serral 3. despite the 2013-2018 era being way more competitive and the number of championship contenders and potential dark horses in tournaments being multitudes higher than in 2024, I gave the era only a 50% buff which means winning 2 tournaments in 2015 is the same as winning 3 tournaments in 2024. I gave such a low multiplier because the relative skill of players that are still active didn't decrease, seeing as Innovation continued to have the same winrates against fellow players like Zest, soO, Classic etc. This conclusion doesn't make sense because those benchmark players are affected by the same circumstances as he is (older age, responsibilities, approaching military). Therefore, this low multiplier is another nerf for Maru. 4. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 7 5. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 9 6. Another (only) 50% buff for pre-2018 in category 11 7. I didn't consider Proleague because that was difficult to do despite it being the most important tournaments for koreans back then with them being prohibited from playing in many overseas tournaments to focus on Proleague. As Maru was a phenomenal Proleague player this is again a huge nerf for Maru. 8. I didn't adjust for racial balance because that's difficult to do. However, this is clearly a nerf to Maru as Zerg was consistently the strongest race for most of Serral's career so including racial balance would have elavated Maru 9. The idea to only look at vs korean winrates makes sense. Technically Clem and Reynor should be included as they are on the same level as top koreans, but because that's difficult to do in aligulac I didn't do it. However, that's another nerf for Maru as he has better winrates vs both than Serral. 10. I put WESG in tier 4 because it didn't have enough top players in the ro8/ro16. Yes, the korean qualifiers included all the best players in the world but I don't feel it's the same as playing them in the ro8/ro16. Therefore, this is another nerf to Maru. 11. Average place achieved: I singled out the prime years because Serral's 2013-2017 would have decreased his score very much. Looking at all years would have been favorable for Maru, therefore it's another nerf for Maru.
This is how someone would have written the section who was as Maru biased as you are Serral biased. I mean, I don't even think your statistical approach was bad at all, I appreciate it, and understand that measuring racial balance or Proleague would've been really difficult. But you don't have to pretend like you're somehow nerfing Serral in every category when you could find just as many arguments for Maru nerfs.
1. You have to decide: Either Maru's earlier years were weak and get abolished completely, or they stay and all of them get counted and you are able to praise his long career. You can't have the best of both worlds. If we discount these, we also have to discount them in the tournament score. Then Serral will be on top again, even if we include team results. 2. Why would I give a bonus for longevity in this metric, when longevity is obviously taken care of in HoF? Finishing high in tournaments is measured by average rank. And achieving a high Aligulac rating would benefit Serral much more. I don't really understand your point here. 3, 4, 5, 6. The win rates of them didn't drop versus the rest of Koreans either. Unless you assume that EVERYONE suddenly got worse, this argument doesn't make sense. You do realize that the 50% weren't the only multiplier that addressed tournaments from different eras, right? But again.. I am open to revise this when my analysis of era comparison is finished. 7. So any replies to the difficulties on how to factor in Proleague/Team results? Or how to actually do it? This still has not been addressed. 8. How would you account for that? 9. This isn't even true. Serral is better versus Reynor. But why not include MaxPax while we are at it? Cause Maru is much worse against him? You do realize how tiny the amount of matches is in the big scope? Even if one player is 5% better than another versus the same player. Also one has to take into account practicability and effect. You know what will happen if we include ever more non-Koreans and not only the ones where Maru supposedly fares better, right? I hope that settles this point. 10. You want me to put it in Category 3? The equivalent of Miz's list? Then Maru gains 0,45 points... I probably don't have to mention that Serral gains much more with a more befitting 1st to 2nd place ratio. 11. Erm. No. This would have affected Maru a lot more, as he played more tournaments in that time frame, as Serral still attended school (look at the screenshot under 6.1 to get an impression).
Many of your takes are either untrue, illogical or will nerf Maru in another way. They cannot remotely be compared to the Serral nerfs I mentioned as far as I am concerned. But I am more than happy to focus on Proleague and imbalance. The more we can agree on, the better the next list will be. Or are there more things that you think I did that were "unfair" to Koreans?
While I admire your willingness to continue running in the same circles, rwala straight up said that he prefers subjective metrics (ie he's redefined 'GOAT' as 'My favorite player'), Chariosaur's comments have run in all the same veins, and Poopi won't even engage with the content because then he'd have to state a position that could be refuted when he'd rather just chime in every few pages with a 2-line quip that allows him to maintain an air of smugness. They aren't here to discuss metrics, they're here to complain about them.
I mean the subject has been discussed ad nauseam already, and we don't know when Starcraft 2 "as we know it" is gonna end (since we don't know what happens after EWC, and if pros are gonna switch to another RTS like Stormgate massively or not).
So guys, I was thinking about the issue of adding team events and came up with the following methodology:
First of all, I check the win rate of a given player. If it is below 50% then the tournament is not counted for that player, because if anyone had this player's win rate, the team would have never gotten an upper placement in the league. This result is an indicator that a player was lifted up by his team-mates and thus there should be no points handed out. It serves as an entrance barrier and is a marker for contribution. It also takes away one of my concerns for including team-results. One could argue that the entrance barrier should be higher, but adding more to a team than being neutral or a burden is fine for me.
We further have a similar continuation as in the other tournament-score counting, as we find ourselves with these multipliers:
Place Era Tournament
I would simply take the same multipliers as in the other tournament (1,5:1:0,45 for 1st, 2nd or 3rd-4th as well as 1,5 for 2010-2016 and 1 for post 2016). For the tournament multiplier I will make a similar list as the one I already have in the article.
There will be a new multiplier, namely the participation-multiplier. Why is that necessary? For example: A team had 60 games in a given season and the player only played 2 games, his contribution is extremely small. The fairest and most practical idea I had, was to simply multiply the rest of the score with the participation rate. Thus, my concerns of weighing the team results against individual results is taken care of at least a little bit. One could argue that a certain threshold like 10% participation rate is a minimum, similar to the win rate explained above, but I don't want to get into unnecessary quarrels.
An example is INnoVation's 2012–2013 SK Planet Proleague. He has a 68% win rate thus clearing him for the further calculation, which is:
1,5 (place) X 1,5 (era) X 1 (tournament) X 0,2386 (participation) for a total of 0,54 points.
What do you guys think?
(The era-mulitplier can later be changed if the in-depth-era-analysis suggests a correction in any direction)
A big problem is that of the ace match, this is clearly a harder match. How would you tackle the problem of a team like CJ with a clear best player, that of herO and a stacked team, where even a player like Flash, or Life might not even get fielded. There is also the thing of sniping a specific player. Rogue might be a player who was used as a sacrificial piece, or sniper versus the other teams best player, this would clearly hamper his rating.
I think for tournaments we should look at it like this: if you win a tournament it symbolizes that you overcame the entire field of players, whereas a second place means you beat one of the brackets, meaning you beat half the player field, semi finals players beat a quarter of the field and so on. With 3rd place it's a little more complicated, but in most of sc2 we didn't have many 3rd\4th placement matches.
On July 31 2024 20:10 ejozl wrote: I think for tournaments we should look at it like this: if you win a tournament it symbolizes that you overcame the entire field of players, whereas a second place means you beat one of the brackets, meaning you beat half the player field, semi finals players beat a quarter of the field and so on. With 3rd place it's a little more complicated, but in most of sc2 we didn't have many 3rd\4th placement matches.
Yeah I think that's a pretty good way of looking at it. According to this you'd think winning a tournament is worth the same as getting 2nd twice?
On July 31 2024 16:17 ejozl wrote: A big problem is that of the ace match, this is clearly a harder match. How would you tackle the problem of a team like CJ with a clear best player, that of herO and a stacked team, where even a player like Flash, or Life might not even get fielded. There is also the thing of sniping a specific player. Rogue might be a player who was used as a sacrificial piece, or sniper versus the other teams best player, this would clearly hamper his rating.
I would not overrate the significance of "sacrifical lambs" or "snipers" in this metric. In the blind pick nature of Proleague one could make educated guesses at best, which player plays in which slot to sacrifice one or try to snipe somebody. Also, a GOAT should not care if he gets sniped or is used as a sacrificial lamb (even writing it down seems counter-intuitive )... he simply wins whatever is thrown at him. Thus, I am not sure, if there should be any compensation or metric for snipers or sacrificial lambs.
Further, in an individual tournament, every match in knockout stage is an ace-match. If we include this thought, team results would be in need of more down-regulation in relation to individual tournaments, because the ace-match is only a very small portion of the overall matches. Out of considerations for impact and practicability (as this whole list is enough work already), I wouldn't divide this metric any further because of the things you mentioned.
On July 31 2024 20:10 ejozl wrote: I think for tournaments we should look at it like this: if you win a tournament it symbolizes that you overcame the entire field of players, whereas a second place means you beat one of the brackets, meaning you beat half the player field, semi finals players beat a quarter of the field and so on. With 3rd place it's a little more complicated, but in most of sc2 we didn't have many 3rd\4th placement matches.
Yeah I think that's a pretty good way of looking at it. According to this you'd think winning a tournament is worth the same as getting 2nd twice?
Just saying: You know, why I used Miz' ratio so far, right? To help Maru in relation to Serral...
On July 31 2024 20:10 ejozl wrote: I think for tournaments we should look at it like this: if you win a tournament it symbolizes that you overcame the entire field of players, whereas a second place means you beat one of the brackets, meaning you beat half the player field, semi finals players beat a quarter of the field and so on. With 3rd place it's a little more complicated, but in most of sc2 we didn't have many 3rd\4th placement matches.
Yeah I think that's a pretty good way of looking at it. According to this you'd think winning a tournament is worth the same as getting 2nd twice?
Yes, you won 2 half tournaments equating to one whole tournament.
On July 31 2024 16:17 ejozl wrote: A big problem is that of the ace match, this is clearly a harder match. How would you tackle the problem of a team like CJ with a clear best player, that of herO and a stacked team, where even a player like Flash, or Life might not even get fielded. There is also the thing of sniping a specific player. Rogue might be a player who was used as a sacrificial piece, or sniper versus the other teams best player, this would clearly hamper his rating.
I would not overrate the significance of "sacrifical lambs" or "snipers" in this metric. In the blind pick nature of Proleague one could make educated guesses at best, which player plays in which slot to sacrifice one or try to snipe somebody. Also, a GOAT should not care if he gets sniped or is used as a sacrificial lamb (even writing it down seems counter-intuitive )... he simply wins whatever is thrown at him. Thus, I am not sure, if there should be any compensation or metric for snipers or sacrificial lambs.
Further, in an individual tournament, every match in knockout stage is an ace-match. If we include this thought, team results would be in need of more down-regulation in relation to individual tournaments, because the ace-match is only a very small portion of the overall matches. Out of considerations for impact and practicability (as this whole list is enough work already), I wouldn't divide this metric any further because of the things you mentioned.
On July 31 2024 20:10 ejozl wrote: I think for tournaments we should look at it like this: if you win a tournament it symbolizes that you overcame the entire field of players, whereas a second place means you beat one of the brackets, meaning you beat half the player field, semi finals players beat a quarter of the field and so on. With 3rd place it's a little more complicated, but in most of sc2 we didn't have many 3rd\4th placement matches.
Yeah I think that's a pretty good way of looking at it. According to this you'd think winning a tournament is worth the same as getting 2nd twice?
Just saying: You know, why I used Miz' ratio so far, right? To help Maru in relation to Serral...
It gets complicated in a game that status is so otherwise overwhelmingly dictated by individual performances. Too complicated IMO, or I perhaps lack the brainpower to come up with a cogent formula!
One probably does perhaps want to account for the overall strength of your team as per team placements, plus the average quality of player you actually faced too.
It gets even harder due to Proleague being relatively short-lived compared to the span of the wider game too. Sample sizes become quite small so hot streaks can really have a big impact.
I mean Innovation is undoubtedly a Proleague, and general team league monster, but he sat out a full season.
On July 31 2024 20:10 ejozl wrote: I think for tournaments we should look at it like this: if you win a tournament it symbolizes that you overcame the entire field of players, whereas a second place means you beat one of the brackets, meaning you beat half the player field, semi finals players beat a quarter of the field and so on. With 3rd place it's a little more complicated, but in most of sc2 we didn't have many 3rd\4th placement matches.
Yeah I think that's a pretty good way of looking at it. According to this you'd think winning a tournament is worth the same as getting 2nd twice?
Yes, you won 2 half tournaments equating to one whole tournament.
While we mortals and fans debate who the GOAT is... pro players are very clear about this. Whether we like it or not, Serral is the name that comes out of their mouths. You can look for any excuse to say that any player is better... you can manipulate the statistical criteria in a certain way to favor one or the other... but to put Maru over Serral you must do things, like the ones they say above that are very illogical .
They both started their years of dominance in the SAME YEARS. If you want, we give more importance to the initial years of SC2 or HOTS ERA and we remove Maru and Serral from the GOAT debate.... but who do we have left??????
These two are contemporaries, in their successful years.
Some people said that they misuse the word "dominant", come on guys, it's just common sense.....no one has a 100% win rate...everyone loses...but the one who loses the least is the most dominant. I don't think we need to go into detail about this topic... holy cow. WHOEVER wrote that doesn't know how unreal it is that Maru and Serral have a 70% win rate and that they maintain it for 6 or 7 years, it's crazy.
By the way, being 2nd is not even close to winning No. 1.... if u wanna be the GOAT... the only thing you want is to win the entire tournament. less if you lose against the other GOAT nominee
If any ex GSL champion, with the exception of Rain, had had Maru's continuing success, or Stat's stability, or Clem's talent... each of them would have continued playing the game.
The lack of numbers impacts competitivness? It does, but more on the A tier list then in the top Code S champion caliber i think.
The ones that remained are the ones that would have kept winning even if those who left had stayed. Simply cus : they left cus they didnt see a winnable future.
On August 05 2024 21:30 Locutos wrote: If any ex GSL champion, with the exception of Rain, had had Maru's continuing success, or Stat's stability, or Clem's talent... each of them would have continued playing the game.
The lack of numbers impacts competitivness? It does, but more on the A tier list then in the top Code S champion caliber i think.
The ones that remained are the ones that would have kept winning even if those who left had stayed. Simply cus : they left cus they didnt see a winnable future.
I see where you're coming from but I think military skews with that a bit as it seems to be extremely difficult to get back to your old level after a 2 years break and some players couldn't quite do it despite imo normally having the talent/ability to keep playing at the top if they weren't forced to take a break. Not to mention the 2 years of results you miss out on by virtue of being in the military
On August 05 2024 21:30 Locutos wrote: If any ex GSL champion, with the exception of Rain, had had Maru's continuing success, or Stat's stability, or Clem's talent... each of them would have continued playing the game.
The lack of numbers impacts competitivness? It does, but more on the A tier list then in the top Code S champion caliber i think.
The ones that remained are the ones that would have kept winning even if those who left had stayed. Simply cus : they left cus they didnt see a winnable future.
I see where you're coming from but I think military skews with that a bit as it seems to be extremely difficult to get back to your old level after a 2 years break and some players couldn't quite do it despite imo normally having the talent/ability to keep playing at the top if they weren't forced to take a break. Not to mention the 2 years of results you miss out on by virtue of being in the military
This military "issue" is the thing that is active question for Serral's case right now.
Finnish conscription and Korean army are ofc two very different things. It can be relatively easily observed and determined that Serral on average suffer from his mandatory military service less than his top Korean peers. It could be even so that he clearly benefits from his recent circumstances career-wise and competition wise. The FDF Sports school environment for the first ever E-sports GI-Joona IS likely very, very good environment for preparation what comes next, or follows.
It is only good, happy lucky strike for the FDF that there is Serral pioneering these things. Modest, intelligent, competitive drive, success during the service that what he may ever say about the corps from E-sports specific perspectives, doesn't appear only as a theory on a paper... He is active, pioneering subject participating to the project of creation of the corps of 'Military E-Sports' in Finland.
In the future, as time goes by, there will be likely a recommendation, citation, or medal like 'Joona Sotala' -award, or something like that for the performance, contribution, and success in their respective arts...
Military argument in the goat debate should be handled as buff/perk for Serral both game playing-wise and legacy-wise relative to Korean counterparts.
Koreans ask: "Can I play?" or "When I can play?" Serral asks: "When It's time to play, what resources I can allocate to that?" or "I need this amount of time for off-duty to prepare properly to the next tournament and keep my career going on after the army, and my needs and estimations for this are pretty good and applicable also to other guys coming after me, regardless of do they play same game or not. Ok?"
Lt. X: "Proceed!" Cpt Y: "Proceed!" Maj Z: "Proceed!" ... The President of The Republic to the 1st Woman: "Honey! Should I send an invitation to Joona..."
- Doesn't particularly like being in the army as being properly professional SC2-player during the service is difficult to do - Have likely lost tens of thousands of potential winnings money because of it - Hopes for minimum 165d service time: first months of the service were the hardest - Could've been able to participate to more tournaments he did, but choose not to by himself: Main aim is to the World Championship tournament - Considers his Dallas premier performance being 'rusty' due the restrictions and limitiations set by the military service - Thinks army is overall negative thing to his career - Is not particularly concerned for his relatively low training time - In good physical shape. Cooper's test: 2450m - the eldest in his company, and only millionaire - Applauds the Sports school and it's activities; recommends it for other E-Sports gamers
[B]Military argument in the goat debate should be handled as buff/perk for Serral both game playing-wise and legacy-wise relative to Korean counterparts.
Lmao what? In what logical universe this makes even a lick of sense?
[B]Military argument in the goat debate should be handled as buff/perk for Serral both game playing-wise and legacy-wise relative to Korean counterparts.
Lmao what? In what logical universe this makes even a lick of sense?
Serral suffers from his military service less than his Korean peers => A Korean lose 2 years of his career with very little opportunity to train while Serral lose only 165 or 255 or 347 days (likely 165d) while still being able to practice... enough well to win premier final vs Maru, for example.
Logically, how Serral's military service compared to average Korean player's military service wouldn't be "buff" or "perk" for Serral?
In the Goat discussion there often appear that "how hard it is to achieve X or Y" -argument. Military service is certainly easier for Serral than his Korean peers at least if we project how well he likely comes out from it performance- and career continuation -wise. Legacy -wise there are no discussion there: Serral is the first E-Sport athlete ever accepted to the FDF Sports School: what he does and think, inevitably set some standards, protocols, practices and models how things develop thereafter. He is only professional of his field of art there within the unit, higher ranks and commanding officers included.
Please explain how there are no 'lick of sense' there.
ADD: In other words, in this context, one must set a hell load of penalties for Serral and everything he does during his military service to be fair for the other GOAT candidate, not suffering from this buff.
Note also that in every off-line tournament where Serral participates during his mandatory military service, is de facto 'command'. This practically means that he doesn't represent only SC2-professional Joona Sotala, but also, and primarily his military unit and ultimately, Finland. Relative freedoms and privileges of athletes accepted to the FDF Sport School come with high responsibility...
In the World Championships there will be Finnish soldier Joona Sotala following his orders and conducting his command, regardless of is he called the GOAT or not.
On August 05 2024 21:30 Locutos wrote: If any ex GSL champion, with the exception of Rain, had had Maru's continuing success, or Stat's stability, or Clem's talent... each of them would have continued playing the game.
The lack of numbers impacts competitivness? It does, but more on the A tier list then in the top Code S champion caliber i think.
The ones that remained are the ones that would have kept winning even if those who left had stayed. Simply cus : they left cus they didnt see a winnable future.
I see where you're coming from but I think military skews with that a bit as it seems to be extremely difficult to get back to your old level after a 2 years break and some players couldn't quite do it despite imo normally having the talent/ability to keep playing at the top if they weren't forced to take a break. Not to mention the 2 years of results you miss out on by virtue of being in the military
- Doesn't particularly like being in the army as being properly professional SC2-player during the service is difficult to do - Have likely lost tens of thousands of potential winnings money because of it - Hopes for minimum 165d service time: first months of the service were the hardest - Could've been able to participate to more tournaments he did, but choose not to by himself: Main aim is to the World Championship tournament - Considers his Dallas premier performance being 'rusty' due the restrictions and limitiations set by the military service - Thinks army is overall negative thing to his career - Is not particularly concerned for his relatively low training time - In good physical shape. Cooper's test: 2450m - the eldest in his company, and only millionaire - Applauds the Sports school and it's activities; recommends it for other E-Sports gamers
Seems to me that everything is going fine there.
Photo courtesy: Iltalehti/Mikko Huisko
Independent of the GOAT stuff, thanks for linking this article! Was wondering how military was going for Serral.
On August 05 2024 21:30 Locutos wrote: If any ex GSL champion, with the exception of Rain, had had Maru's continuing success, or Stat's stability, or Clem's talent... each of them would have continued playing the game.
The lack of numbers impacts competitivness? It does, but more on the A tier list then in the top Code S champion caliber i think.
The ones that remained are the ones that would have kept winning even if those who left had stayed. Simply cus : they left cus they didnt see a winnable future.
I see where you're coming from but I think military skews with that a bit as it seems to be extremely difficult to get back to your old level after a 2 years break and some players couldn't quite do it despite imo normally having the talent/ability to keep playing at the top if they weren't forced to take a break. Not to mention the 2 years of results you miss out on by virtue of being in the military
- Doesn't particularly like being in the army as being properly professional SC2-player during the service is difficult to do - Have likely lost tens of thousands of potential winnings money because of it - Hopes for minimum 165d service time: first months of the service were the hardest - Could've been able to participate to more tournaments he did, but choose not to by himself: Main aim is to the World Championship tournament - Considers his Dallas premier performance being 'rusty' due the restrictions and limitiations set by the military service - Thinks army is overall negative thing to his career - Is not particularly concerned for his relatively low training time - In good physical shape. Cooper's test: 2450m - the eldest in his company, and only millionaire - Applauds the Sports school and it's activities; recommends it for other E-Sports gamers
Seems to me that everything is going fine there.
Photo courtesy: Iltalehti/Mikko Huisko
Independent of the GOAT stuff, thanks for linking this article! Was wondering how military was going for Serral.
Independent of the GOAT stuff, there are search results for 'Joona Sotala' from 3 biggest Finnish news sources:
Not much new articles, but for those who want google translate and read about Serral from Finnish public media perspective, these could be interesting.
On August 05 2024 21:30 Locutos wrote: If any ex GSL champion, with the exception of Rain, had had Maru's continuing success, or Stat's stability, or Clem's talent... each of them would have continued playing the game.
The lack of numbers impacts competitivness? It does, but more on the A tier list then in the top Code S champion caliber i think.
The ones that remained are the ones that would have kept winning even if those who left had stayed. Simply cus : they left cus they didnt see a winnable future.
I see where you're coming from but I think military skews with that a bit as it seems to be extremely difficult to get back to your old level after a 2 years break and some players couldn't quite do it despite imo normally having the talent/ability to keep playing at the top if they weren't forced to take a break. Not to mention the 2 years of results you miss out on by virtue of being in the military
- Doesn't particularly like being in the army as being properly professional SC2-player during the service is difficult to do - Have likely lost tens of thousands of potential winnings money because of it - Hopes for minimum 165d service time: first months of the service were the hardest - Could've been able to participate to more tournaments he did, but choose not to by himself: Main aim is to the World Championship tournament - Considers his Dallas premier performance being 'rusty' due the restrictions and limitiations set by the military service - Thinks army is overall negative thing to his career - Is not particularly concerned for his relatively low training time - In good physical shape. Cooper's test: 2450m - the eldest in his company, and only millionaire - Applauds the Sports school and it's activities; recommends it for other E-Sports gamers
Seems to me that everything is going fine there.
Photo courtesy: Iltalehti/Mikko Huisko
Independent of the GOAT stuff, thanks for linking this article! Was wondering how military was going for Serral.
Independent of the GOAT stuff, there are search results for 'Joona Sotala' from 3 biggest Finnish news sources:
Not much new articles, but for those who want google translate and read about Serral from Finnish public media perspective, these could be interesting.
On August 05 2024 21:30 Locutos wrote: If any ex GSL champion, with the exception of Rain, had had Maru's continuing success, or Stat's stability, or Clem's talent... each of them would have continued playing the game.
The lack of numbers impacts competitivness? It does, but more on the A tier list then in the top Code S champion caliber i think.
The ones that remained are the ones that would have kept winning even if those who left had stayed. Simply cus : they left cus they didnt see a winnable future.
I see where you're coming from but I think military skews with that a bit as it seems to be extremely difficult to get back to your old level after a 2 years break and some players couldn't quite do it despite imo normally having the talent/ability to keep playing at the top if they weren't forced to take a break. Not to mention the 2 years of results you miss out on by virtue of being in the military
- Doesn't particularly like being in the army as being properly professional SC2-player during the service is difficult to do - Have likely lost tens of thousands of potential winnings money because of it - Hopes for minimum 165d service time: first months of the service were the hardest - Could've been able to participate to more tournaments he did, but choose not to by himself: Main aim is to the World Championship tournament - Considers his Dallas premier performance being 'rusty' due the restrictions and limitiations set by the military service - Thinks army is overall negative thing to his career - Is not particularly concerned for his relatively low training time - In good physical shape. Cooper's test: 2450m - the eldest in his company, and only millionaire - Applauds the Sports school and it's activities; recommends it for other E-Sports gamers
Seems to me that everything is going fine there.
Photo courtesy: Iltalehti/Mikko Huisko
Independent of the GOAT stuff, thanks for linking this article! Was wondering how military was going for Serral.
Independent of the GOAT stuff, there are search results for 'Joona Sotala' from 3 biggest Finnish news sources:
Not much new articles, but for those who want google translate and read about Serral from Finnish public media perspective, these could be interesting.
Sorry @Premobeats for getting carried away and going off topic here with these. But where else?
Haha, no worries, I was happy to see the articles although some seem to be blocked by a pay wall.
Overall I am finished with analyzing Life's and Mvp's data and am currently working on a system to make the different metrics comparable (50k PP from HoF versus average places, etc). Then I will do the era comparison, which will take a lot longer as the search for players ranks - especially in the earlier years - can be quite time consuming (I plan to include average rank of players as well as a ratio of how much more or less higher ranked players advanced in which era). Not much was added in this thread to my thoughts about the incorporation of team results, thus I set up the equation the way I laid it out before.
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
Well yeah, I think this really is a bit nitpicking. I think in 2019 Dark was better and 2020-2021 Serral also wasn't THE best player, but I mean - we also say Mvp dominated WoL despite him only really dominating 2011. I think Serral is dominating since 2018 is a pretty fair statement
Yeah, and even between MVP's GSL wins during his year of dominance, there was Nestea winning GSLs and MC too. So very fair to say that Serral has been dominating 2018-2024 in a general sense. Not necessarily each and every year but overall.
I think Serral's achievements during 2019 are pretty good, but a lot of it feels inflated by qualifiers into the next stage of the tournament, etc. I would also say Dark had a more convincing 2019 just cus the stuff he won was more high profile.
Alright, if we're just literally changing the meaning of words to fit our points, there is not much I can say. Dictionary defs pretty clearly equate dominate with being the best. No idea how you guys feel this confident reshaping the meaning of that word. This feels so weird. And funnily enough premobeats himself doubled down on dominating as synonym for best, e.g., noting serral's winrates against koreans since 2018. So this is the position you guys are in: you're at the same time arguing dominating somehow doesn't mean being the best in order to defend criticism of premobeats' analysis while premobeats's own words undercut your position. Wild
I didn't say that though? I'm not saying dominating doesn't mean the best. It depends what you mean by dominating, we're not reshaping the word. MVP was the best in 2011, yes. He was dominant. But he wasn't dominant on a month to month basis.
Thus, it's fair to say Serral was dominant (the best) in the period of 2018 to 2024 because he was overall dominant, even if you think certain years players like Dark, Trap, Maru, or Rogue had a better year.
I wrote an article recently that tracked where people finished in the WCS/ESL/etc standings (the ones used to determine the attendees for that years World Championship). I can just port the info over here...
These cover every player who finished in the Top 16 of any edition of the described standings (this is only tracking the KR region). These are obviously flawed as a method of divining the "player of the year" because they are missing the world championship from said year, but they are illustrative of a player's results over a longer span of time.
Wow this is really fun to look at, thanks. Seeing Solar and sOs at #2 and #3 for most top 16s is nice, they've been around and did well for so many years.
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
Well yeah, I think this really is a bit nitpicking. I think in 2019 Dark was better and 2020-2021 Serral also wasn't THE best player, but I mean - we also say Mvp dominated WoL despite him only really dominating 2011. I think Serral is dominating since 2018 is a pretty fair statement
Yeah, and even between MVP's GSL wins during his year of dominance, there was Nestea winning GSLs and MC too. So very fair to say that Serral has been dominating 2018-2024 in a general sense. Not necessarily each and every year but overall.
I think Serral's achievements during 2019 are pretty good, but a lot of it feels inflated by qualifiers into the next stage of the tournament, etc. I would also say Dark had a more convincing 2019 just cus the stuff he won was more high profile.
Alright, if we're just literally changing the meaning of words to fit our points, there is not much I can say. Dictionary defs pretty clearly equate dominate with being the best. No idea how you guys feel this confident reshaping the meaning of that word. This feels so weird. And funnily enough premobeats himself doubled down on dominating as synonym for best, e.g., noting serral's winrates against koreans since 2018. So this is the position you guys are in: you're at the same time arguing dominating somehow doesn't mean being the best in order to defend criticism of premobeats' analysis while premobeats's own words undercut your position. Wild
I didn't say that though? I'm not saying dominating doesn't mean the best. It depends what you mean by dominating, we're not reshaping the word. MVP was the best in 2011, yes. He was dominant. But he wasn't dominant on a month to month basis.
Thus, it's fair to say Serral was dominant (the best) in the period of 2018 to 2024 because he was overall dominant, even if you think certain years players like Dark, Trap, Maru, or Rogue had a better year.
I wrote an article recently that tracked where people finished in the WCS/ESL/etc standings (the ones used to determine the attendees for that years World Championship). I can just port the info over here...
These cover every player who finished in the Top 16 of any edition of the described standings (this is only tracking the KR region). These are obviously flawed as a method of divining the "player of the year" because they are missing the world championship from said year, but they are illustrative of a player's results over a longer span of time.
Wow this is really fun to look at, thanks. Seeing Solar and sOs at #2 and #3 for most top 16s is nice, they've been around and did well for so many years.
2016 is the only year in which the first and second place finishers played the same race—with Dark finishing first and Solar coming in second.
and
The record for the longest gap of time between two Top 16 finishes is held by Dream and DRG—who failed to appear on the standings for five consecutive years.
On July 25 2024 03:40 lokol4890 wrote: Quick example: 2019. Serral participates in 6 premier international events: iem, wesg, rog assembly summer, gsl vs the world, hsc, and blizzcon. Lost iem, lost wesg, lost rog, and lost blizzcon. Soo wins iem, dark wins blizzcon. In that year dark also wins super tournament and a gsl. So you have serral with a gsl vs the world and hsc to his name, and dark with a gsl proper, a super tournament, and blizzcon. In what universe did serral dominate 2019?
E: let's try 2020 because why not. Serral wins esl masters summer and winter. Rogue wins iem and a gsl. Dark wins TSL. Reynor wins esl masters fall and douyu cup. I don't know man, I'm expecting a person who supposedly dominates to do more than just trade tournaments with the other zergs.
So here is a list from Serral:s results from 2019:
08.12.19 1st Premier StarCraft II: NationWars 2019 24.11.19 1st Premier HomeStory Cup XX 01.11.19 3rd-4th Premier 2019 WCS Global Finals 08.09.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Fall 24.08.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Fall: Europe Qualifier 18.08.19 1st Premier 2019 GSL vs the World 18.08.19 2nd Premier 2019 GSL vs. The World: Teams Competition 03.08.19 3rd- th Premier Assembly Summer 2019 14.07.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Summer 30.06.19 1st Major HomeStory Cup XIX 22.06.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Summer: Europe Qualifier 19.05.19 1st Premier 2019 WCS Spring 04.05.19 1st Major 2019 WCS Spring: Europe Qualifier 07.04.19 2nd Premier 2019 WCS Winter Europe 17.03.19 2nd Premier World Electronic Sports Games 2018 03.03.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 4 02.03.19 5th-8th Premier IEM Season XIII - Katowice 24.02.19 1st Week. (Basic) EU Ladder Heroes/2019/February Week 3
So, I dont know about dominating but isnt this almost that ? Who else puts up with that kind of results or even near ? After 2018 there were already speculations about who can beat him after 42 (or something) matches undefeated. 2019 and 2020 were bit more "slump" years for Serral, and still he was favourite to win every single tournament he went to. In this list, he has 11 number one spots, 4 number two spots, 2 places at 3-4th and one whole finish at 5-8th. Quickly calculated his average tournament spot is 1,94sh or something. His tournament winrate was over 60%. Yeah, yeah, they arent same value and all, but you get the point.
Yeah, he maybe hasnt been the ultimately best player of every single year, but he has still been the man to beat whole that time. His winrates have been constantly up at 70-80% vs. best of the field. THATS what I call Dominating.
Well yeah, I think this really is a bit nitpicking. I think in 2019 Dark was better and 2020-2021 Serral also wasn't THE best player, but I mean - we also say Mvp dominated WoL despite him only really dominating 2011. I think Serral is dominating since 2018 is a pretty fair statement
Yeah, and even between MVP's GSL wins during his year of dominance, there was Nestea winning GSLs and MC too. So very fair to say that Serral has been dominating 2018-2024 in a general sense. Not necessarily each and every year but overall.
I think Serral's achievements during 2019 are pretty good, but a lot of it feels inflated by qualifiers into the next stage of the tournament, etc. I would also say Dark had a more convincing 2019 just cus the stuff he won was more high profile.
Alright, if we're just literally changing the meaning of words to fit our points, there is not much I can say. Dictionary defs pretty clearly equate dominate with being the best. No idea how you guys feel this confident reshaping the meaning of that word. This feels so weird. And funnily enough premobeats himself doubled down on dominating as synonym for best, e.g., noting serral's winrates against koreans since 2018. So this is the position you guys are in: you're at the same time arguing dominating somehow doesn't mean being the best in order to defend criticism of premobeats' analysis while premobeats's own words undercut your position. Wild
I didn't say that though? I'm not saying dominating doesn't mean the best. It depends what you mean by dominating, we're not reshaping the word. MVP was the best in 2011, yes. He was dominant. But he wasn't dominant on a month to month basis.
Thus, it's fair to say Serral was dominant (the best) in the period of 2018 to 2024 because he was overall dominant, even if you think certain years players like Dark, Trap, Maru, or Rogue had a better year.
I wrote an article recently that tracked where people finished in the WCS/ESL/etc standings (the ones used to determine the attendees for that years World Championship). I can just port the info over here...
These cover every player who finished in the Top 16 of any edition of the described standings (this is only tracking the KR region). These are obviously flawed as a method of divining the "player of the year" because they are missing the world championship from said year, but they are illustrative of a player's results over a longer span of time.
Wow this is really fun to look at, thanks. Seeing Solar and sOs at #2 and #3 for most top 16s is nice, they've been around and did well for so many years.
2016 is the only year in which the first and second place finishers played the same race—with Dark finishing first and Solar coming in second.
and
The record for the longest gap of time between two Top 16 finishes is held by Dream and DRG—who failed to appear on the standings for five consecutive years.
Damn! Korean 'reserves' are deep. Which of course can be seen from two different perspectives:
A) a level of competition is abysmal when these guys can make their cases, or B) a level of competition isn't that abysmal when there are still guys like these who can
or
C) a level of competition at the Top have not been declined as much as typical narrative usually want tell to us, even if looking to the last few years...
I am just here to express support for OP, and lament how stubborn the Korean elitists are. They are literally blind to all the data and hard work OP presented and will keep arguing with flawed logic forever.
Interesting post, and cool how all the GOAT lists got lots of traction, starting with Miz's post.
Winning in the last few years hasn't been as exciting and competitive for sure. I remember in the old days, new/skilled players are popping up every tournament, and it's super exciting to see how they bring new strategy, new idea, and new energy into the scene. When Jaedong/Flash switched to SC2 in like '12~13, Jaedong was like 22~23 of age, and considered a half-dinosaur at that point.
Today, the top 40 players on Aligulac (page 1 of Aligulac), with age rounded down (i.e., regardless of you are 28.00 or 28.99 y.o. you are 28), the median age is 28, the min is 20 for MaxPax, and the max is 33 for Ryung.
In fact, the peak age in terms of prize money won for all esports is 21. This means that even our youngest top 40 players rn (MaxPax) is about to past that peak in a few months.
Having said that, I'm glad we have a bit more of Starcraft II pro-scene to enjoy. Hope this wouldn't be the last big ride.
You can't buff ppl from doing military service at unfortunate times. That's like the what ifs of: MVP (body problems) and life (match fix). Military service does weaken the scene though, especially when it's already as thin as it is.
On July 26 2025 03:36 onPHYRE wrote: Imagine thinking the GOAT is someone with 0 world titles 15 years into the game.
Serral has 3 (debatably 4 the year Katowice was the world championship until EWC was added later in the year).
Imagine thinking the goat is someone with 0 titles 8 years into the game. You people probably think Soulkey is the Brood war goat LOL
Serral started winning titles a couple of years into playing. Sorry the GOAT didn’t start playing games in 2010.. that literally has nothing to do with anything. Every analyst talks about how the game is at its highest skill level right now. Jordan isn’t the GOAT because he didn’t play back when the game was invented? The Celtics aren’t the greatest Dynasty because they didn’t win until ‘57! I’ve read some awful arguments on here but this one takes the cake.
And no Soulkey is not the GOAT (he is the best player in the world currrntly), it’s clearly Flash.
On July 26 2025 03:36 onPHYRE wrote: Imagine thinking the GOAT is someone with 0 world titles 15 years into the game.
Serral has 3 (debatably 4 the year Katowice was the world championship until EWC was added later in the year).
Imagine thinking the goat is someone with 0 titles 8 years into the game. You people probably think Soulkey is the Brood war goat LOL
Serral started winning titles a couple of years into playing. Sorry the GOAT didn’t start playing games in 2010.. that literally has nothing to do with anything. Every analyst talks about how the game is at its highest skill level right now. Jordan isn’t the GOAT because he didn’t play back when the game was invented? The Celtics aren’t the greatest Dynasty because they didn’t win until ‘57! I’ve read some awful arguments on here but this one takes the cake.
And no Soulkey is not the GOAT (he is the best player in the world currrntly), it’s clearly Flash.
If WC titles is all you look at, why denying the fact he was a pro since 2013 though still lacking achievement in Kespa era when Maru/Life both won SSL/OSL/GSL during the time? You can just make a claim that “Serral didn’t achieve good results in the SC2 esports prime time but he got 3 WC titles so he is GOAT although the scene is less competitive”, isn’t this all facts? Is this claim not strong enough for yourself so that you have to make it perfect by denying facts like “oh Serral was actively playing but he wasn’t good so imma erase that history” or “(being delusional) Kespa era wasnt the most competitive despite that it had the full esports professional team league infrastructure and had OSL/SSL/GSL/WCS/Proleague nonstop every week”.
Also if WC titles is the most important, then SOS >>> Maru/Inno/Stats? SOS should also be way above anyone since he got the WCS when the scene was still thriving.
On July 26 2025 03:36 onPHYRE wrote: Imagine thinking the GOAT is someone with 0 world titles 15 years into the game.
Serral has 3 (debatably 4 the year Katowice was the world championship until EWC was added later in the year).
Imagine thinking the goat is someone with 0 titles 8 years into the game. You people probably think Soulkey is the Brood war goat LOL
Serral started winning titles a couple of years into playing. Sorry the GOAT didn’t start playing games in 2010.. that literally has nothing to do with anything. Every analyst talks about how the game is at its highest skill level right now. Jordan isn’t the GOAT because he didn’t play back when the game was invented? The Celtics aren’t the greatest Dynasty because they didn’t win until ‘57! I’ve read some awful arguments on here but this one takes the cake.
And no Soulkey is not the GOAT (he is the best player in the world currrntly), it’s clearly Flash.
Oh its one of those delusional redditors that think the game is at its "HIGHEST LEVEL EVER!"
On July 26 2025 03:36 onPHYRE wrote: Imagine thinking the GOAT is someone with 0 world titles 15 years into the game.
Serral has 3 (debatably 4 the year Katowice was the world championship until EWC was added later in the year).
Imagine thinking the goat is someone with 0 titles 8 years into the game. You people probably think Soulkey is the Brood war goat LOL
Serral started winning titles a couple of years into playing. Sorry the GOAT didn’t start playing games in 2010.. that literally has nothing to do with anything. Every analyst talks about how the game is at its highest skill level right now. Jordan isn’t the GOAT because he didn’t play back when the game was invented? The Celtics aren’t the greatest Dynasty because they didn’t win until ‘57! I’ve read some awful arguments on here but this one takes the cake.
And no Soulkey is not the GOAT (he is the best player in the world currrntly), it’s clearly Flash.
Oh its one of those delusional redditors that think the game is at its "HIGHEST LEVEL EVER!"
"Highest in-game knowlegde" could be as it should be better as time goes. "Highest level ever" idk about this watching the slow version of maru still be able to be on top 8 makes me not believe this "Lowest competitive level" 100%. The competitive level is going down every year and in this year it's always almost the same group of people in top 8 every time.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8A5trTH.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/neJGHvU.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/TNDlndA.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fN4DHN6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2YYSYES.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7DWYT9a.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/cjMEwXh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ydZhSCh.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xTBFZpY.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/rHRTRoc.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/63cKCN6.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PT2puK9.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/epsuUJU.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/Mizenhauer/WC_Charts.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/Mizenhauer/WC_table.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://img.ilcdn.fi/IExz6L8jS5vOP4g7IiCZqSmu-hI=/169x0:2835x2000/full-fit-in/920x0/img-s3.ilcdn.fi/ecf76abf60ed5e1a108271d6a965c5dd36f12a66283c9776143a888fef1e00d2.jpg)
