|
On August 10 2024 07:50 rwala wrote:
This is hilarious but in all seriousness it is more credible than the other actually serious (I think?) attempt that invented 7 criteria designed to crown Serral and had Mvp potentially as low as 16th.
Well MVP isn't on this one. If I would nerf MMA from the 2016 invitational and made other similar adjustments to other players, MVP would probably be #18. On the unnerfed list MVP, I believe is #18 and Serral is #6.
|
On August 24 2024 03:22 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2024 07:50 rwala wrote:
This is hilarious but in all seriousness it is more credible than the other actually serious (I think?) attempt that invented 7 criteria designed to crown Serral and had Mvp potentially as low as 16th. Well MVP isn't on this one. If I would nerf MMA from the 2016 invitational and made other similar adjustments to other players, MVP would probably be #18. On the unnerfed list MVP, I believe is #18 and Serral is #6.
Well I assumed you were in part messing with us all, but assuming you're serious, I can't get behind your list but am sure glad you provided some entertainment value!
|
On August 11 2024 23:27 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2024 22:08 rwala wrote:On August 10 2024 17:31 PremoBeats wrote:On August 10 2024 08:00 WombaT wrote:On August 10 2024 07:50 rwala wrote:
This is hilarious but in all seriousness it is more credible than the other actually serious (I think?) attempt that invented 7 criteria designed to crown Serral and had Mvp potentially as low as 16th. Most of those criteria actively nerfed Serral though Nonetheless to me and many others greatness is a feeling, what people value will differ too, so trying to make some kind of objective set of metrics is almost doomed to failure from the outset. Still, always makes for some fun discussion! At this point rwala must be trolling. I was able to take him seriously until a certain point, but it is clear, that he isn't interested in discussing this issue further on a good faith level. To even suggest that this attempt is more credible or my list wasn't serious is utterly absurd. Although I have to say that (iirc it was him) he at least was open about his subjective feelings trumping objectivity in another thread (Miz' or mine... can't remember). This is similar to what you are suggesting here. But as I said in another thread, there are metrics for people that are present in GOAT discussions in other sports that can be measured. And these metrics include achievements, win rates, tournaments win rates, occupation of high ranks if the sport has a ranking system, trophies, awards and all kinds of more subjective qualities. But the hard metrics definitely include the ones that I looked at and there is a correlation with good results in these metrics and being in a GOAT discussion. I am further happy to add other metrics if people feel that I have been looking unfairly at this whole topic. I am far from done with my re-work, as I definitely don't want to repeat the mistakes I made last time and be as objective as possible (small spoiler: so far, Serral has been - closely - kicked out of #1 in at least 1 metric by including team results in the tournament score - which was kind of expected as he isn't Korean and wasn't participating in that many team events). The hardest thing at the moment is the era analysis... how to factor in retired/banned players, overall competitiveness and tournament structure is hard to wrap my head around. But the start looks promising... the data gathered so far indicates that I wasn't too far off with the era- plus tournamnet-multiplier combination from leveling the playing field between different eras. I’m glad you realize now that revealing your subjectivity and bias was a mistake though I have to say that’s a hard one to correct once the cat is out of the bag. There is an "and" between not repeating mistakes and being as objective as possible. And something you probably don't want to hear is, that Serral still was disfavored the most in my article. Thus going full objective probably doesn't help with your subjective wishes (Mostly I will correct my hype-speech as well as implement a more factual based approach when talking about who was favored by certain decisions and what the impact was in the areas that might be in alignmemt with your POV). Show nested quote +On August 11 2024 22:08 rwala wrote:
It’s hard to take seriously someone who struggles to understand why Life’s crimes should be factored into a GOAT convo The greatness of Life's results and achievements and his claim to in overall GOAT discussion is something I am able to differentiate indeed. It is fine if you are not able to do it.
I mean I could allow math to dictate that a criminal cheater who arguably did more than any other person to bring about the game's premature decline is one of the game's GOATs. But I wouldn't. As you know--consistent with GOAT debates in every other game and sport--I don't believe "greatness" is a mere algorithmic output divorced from common sense notions of greatness...which happens to include not destroying the game (in my opinion).
|
On August 24 2024 11:28 rwala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2024 23:27 PremoBeats wrote:On August 11 2024 22:08 rwala wrote:On August 10 2024 17:31 PremoBeats wrote:On August 10 2024 08:00 WombaT wrote:On August 10 2024 07:50 rwala wrote:
This is hilarious but in all seriousness it is more credible than the other actually serious (I think?) attempt that invented 7 criteria designed to crown Serral and had Mvp potentially as low as 16th. Most of those criteria actively nerfed Serral though Nonetheless to me and many others greatness is a feeling, what people value will differ too, so trying to make some kind of objective set of metrics is almost doomed to failure from the outset. Still, always makes for some fun discussion! At this point rwala must be trolling. I was able to take him seriously until a certain point, but it is clear, that he isn't interested in discussing this issue further on a good faith level. To even suggest that this attempt is more credible or my list wasn't serious is utterly absurd. Although I have to say that (iirc it was him) he at least was open about his subjective feelings trumping objectivity in another thread (Miz' or mine... can't remember). This is similar to what you are suggesting here. But as I said in another thread, there are metrics for people that are present in GOAT discussions in other sports that can be measured. And these metrics include achievements, win rates, tournaments win rates, occupation of high ranks if the sport has a ranking system, trophies, awards and all kinds of more subjective qualities. But the hard metrics definitely include the ones that I looked at and there is a correlation with good results in these metrics and being in a GOAT discussion. I am further happy to add other metrics if people feel that I have been looking unfairly at this whole topic. I am far from done with my re-work, as I definitely don't want to repeat the mistakes I made last time and be as objective as possible (small spoiler: so far, Serral has been - closely - kicked out of #1 in at least 1 metric by including team results in the tournament score - which was kind of expected as he isn't Korean and wasn't participating in that many team events). The hardest thing at the moment is the era analysis... how to factor in retired/banned players, overall competitiveness and tournament structure is hard to wrap my head around. But the start looks promising... the data gathered so far indicates that I wasn't too far off with the era- plus tournamnet-multiplier combination from leveling the playing field between different eras. I’m glad you realize now that revealing your subjectivity and bias was a mistake though I have to say that’s a hard one to correct once the cat is out of the bag. There is an "and" between not repeating mistakes and being as objective as possible. And something you probably don't want to hear is, that Serral still was disfavored the most in my article. Thus going full objective probably doesn't help with your subjective wishes (Mostly I will correct my hype-speech as well as implement a more factual based approach when talking about who was favored by certain decisions and what the impact was in the areas that might be in alignmemt with your POV). On August 11 2024 22:08 rwala wrote:
It’s hard to take seriously someone who struggles to understand why Life’s crimes should be factored into a GOAT convo The greatness of Life's results and achievements and his claim to in overall GOAT discussion is something I am able to differentiate indeed. It is fine if you are not able to do it. I mean I could allow math to dictate that a criminal cheater who arguably did more than any other person to bring about the game's premature decline is one of the game's GOATs. But I wouldn't. As you know--consistent with GOAT debates in every other game and sport--I don't believe "greatness" is a mere algorithmic output divorced from common sense notions of greatness...which happens to include not destroying the game (in my opinion).
I guess it depends on your definition of "great". Mine would be something along the lines of being remarkable, skilled, and influential. I don't think being great necessarily has to do with ethics, many great leaders or innovators are ethically questionable and some perhaps lack honor. Like Julius Caesar (great leader and conqueror, but subverted democratic norms and became a dictator), Steve Jobs (one of the greatest product visionary of our time, but had harsh management style and questionable personal behavior), and Walt Disney (create the most influential entertainment empire of our time, but was likely racist and accused of anti-Semitic views).
Now, I would still call these people "great", but not righteous or honorable, or even ethical overall.
Coming back to Life, I think "greatness" should be just a algorithmic output. The problem here is that we don't capture sufficient input in our formula, at least not fully, yes we got the results and prize $, but it doesn't fully capture concepts like "remarkable" or "influential".
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
Here's an updated list:
+ Show Spoiler +
#1 _Maru
#2 _INno
#3 _sOs
#4 _Dark
#5 _Life
#6 _Serral
#7 _Rogue
#8 _Zest
#9 _TaeJA
#10 _MC
#11 _TY
#12 _herO
#13 _PartinG
#14 _Stats
#15 _Classic
#16 _MVP
#17 _Solar
#18 _ByuN
#19 _SoO
#20 _MMA
#21 _Polt
#22 _Jaedong
#23 _Reynor
#24 _Rain
#25 _DRG
#26 _Bomber
#27 _Leenock
#28 _HerO
#29 _Nestea
#30 _Clem
This time around the era multiplier + balance multiplier is only being applied to tournaments eligible, requirements are: Offline, must include Koreans or korean qualifiers, above 2k prize pool, mustn't be an invitational. So, the big change here is really that I'm sorting tournaments manually by prize pool, and I've done it so that the bigger the prize, the less each $ is worth, because I do not believe winning Riadh "400.000 $" is worth the same as winning 40x 10.000 $ tournaments in terms of achievement.
I still use overall earnings, so online matches, regionals or even invitationals are worth points, but to a much smaller extend, a qualified tournament is about 4x times an unqualified tournament's worth, and that is before the era multification. I'm using overall prize winnings for the balancing factor and is done anually. So here's an example: MC won 89,442$ in 2010, he won 86,700$ from gsl that is modified by 0.4578 because of the size of its prize money, here it is above 70k and 100k, it's then multiplied by 1.16 balancing factor which is how much less Protoss won that year from 1/3 of overall earnings, it's then put through era factor, and finally MC's overall earning from that year is added on top for a total score.
The system can still improve and yes, it's prize money based, which has its faults, but this version handles the issues the older one had much better. For instance, I don't have to put some arbitrary weights on players who played in regionals, now they are simply discounted for the calculated tournaments, but still count in the overall earnings. And winning Zotac cups in 2013 now aren't affected by era multification, this was a big issue with the old ranking.
|
How are you basing your entire list on prizemoney and then keep finding ways to not actually use the prizemoney but instead add more and more random multipliers?
If you really think a GSL win in the "golden era" is, if I recall, worth 40x the points of todays GSL (10% of the prizepool and only 1/4 of era points), than EWC is easily worth 40x 10K tournaments. Or what, did the wrong people win EWC so far?
|
MMA under SOLAR and PARTING LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
Best year:
+ Show Spoiler +
Maru 1437247 2018
ByuN 1425823 2016
TY 1238076 2017
TaeJA 1043594 2013
Life 1025702 2014
Serral 1009767 2018
sOs 959892 2013
Rogue 930321 2017
JaeDong 899660 2013
Zest 884224 2014
MVP 852262 2011
PartinG 837917 2012
Dark 829413 2016
INno 829322 2013
TaeJA 814541 2014
DRG 787273 2012
MC 786364 2011
Clem 784113 2024
MC 783975 2012
MVP 773335 2012
Dark 771895 2019
sOs 762119 2015
NesTea 759755 2011
sOs 758934 2014
Life 732282 2015
Dear 726377 2013
Stats 686261 2017
Serral 685283 2024
INno 673806 2015
Leenock 626976 2012
TaeJA 620944 2012
Bomber 602275 2013
Life 595941 2013
Maru 595148 2013
INno 590032 2014
MMA 589924 2014
Stats 586722 2018
Maru 566607 2015
SoO 553545 2017
MMA 541895 2011
Rogue 534436 2020
HerO 527310 2012
Rain 521106 2012
Classic 518676 2018
Polt 517530 2014
Rogue 515392 2018
JaeDong 511098 2014
Classic 496425 2015
herO 470289 2015
Top 3 year period:
+ Show Spoiler +
sOs 2480945 13-15
TaeJA 2479080 12-14
Life 2360655 12-14
INno 2093162 13-15
MC 1936496 10-12
MVP 1853875 11-13
Stats 1723743 16-18
TY 1718210 16-18
Zest 1652131 14-16
Rogue 1584485 17-19
Jaedong 1534191 13-15
ByuN 1495607 16-18
Serral 1433803 18-20
Dark 1373414 16-18
PartnG 1366886 12-14
Dominance (top 3 years + top 6 years + every year):
+ Show Spoiler +
Dominance Ranking:
#1 Maru
#2 sOs
#3 Inno
#4 Life
#5 Taeja
#6 Dark
#7 Rogue
#8 MC
#9 Serral
#10 Zest
#11 TY
#12 Stats
#13 MVP
#14 PartinG
#15 ByuN
#16 MMA
#17 Classic
#18 herO
#19 JaeDong
#20 SoO
#21 Polt
#22 Solar
#23 DRG
#24 Rain
#25 Leenock
#26 Bomber
#27 Reynor
#28 Nestea
#29 HerO
#30 Dear
|
On July 04 2025 14:54 ShowTheLights wrote:
MMA under SOLAR and PARTING LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Solar's overall winnings is pretty massive, PartinG is also higher than MMA. I disqualify WCS EU and America, which goes against MMA. MMA has most winnings in 2011 which is both a bonkers year for Terran and is counted less in its era than 2013-2015, which is an era where Solar actually does well (2014-2016).
You can see my new dominance ranking, here MMA does better and is in part because PartinG and Solar kept playing past 2016, and Solar even did decent.
|
On July 04 2025 10:41 Balnazza wrote:
How are you basing your entire list on prizemoney and then keep finding ways to not actually use the prizemoney but instead add more and more random multipliers?
If you really think a GSL win in the "golden era" is, if I recall, worth 40x the points of todays GSL (10% of the prizepool and only 1/4 of era points), than EWC is easily worth 40x 10K tournaments. Or what, did the wrong people win EWC so far?
No, 2010\11 where the gsl prize pool was that high is also worth half of 2013-2015, at least 2010 is. So, if fruitdealer won 100k in gsl its era is worth twice the amount of today, but it suffers a penalty for having above 70k prize pool for the winner. In 2015 the highest gsl win I think would be 66k, so what is that 10x times prize pool of today, but would suffer penalty for amount. EWC is worth less for the reason that its prize pool is even greater than 150, so the biggest penalty, it also has 25% for era and if clem won it, it probably also means that terran was favoured this year. This could mean that byun winning 200k in 2016 when terran was bad and in a stronger era, gains more points than clem winning 400k in 2024. If I didn't wanna do all these calculations, or molestations as some might call it, I would simply look at prize winnings on esports earnings. But while herO has now won more money than any other protoss I do not believe he is the protoss GOAT.
|
But while herO has now won more money than any other protoss I do not believe he is the protoss GOAT.
Which gives you two options: Either prizemoney is a bad option to calculate the GOAT or you specifically start manipulating the statistic until it gives you the "correct" answer...but then why have a statistic in the first place? The entire era- and balance-weighting is a flawed concept to begin with considering how subjective it is, it really does not get improved by also "punishing" big prizepools, which usually correspond with important titles.
Also...why did you disqualify WCS Europe/America? WCS Europe 2014 Season 1, in which MMA placed 2nd, fulfills all your criteria:
Offline (mostly), not an invitational (same format as GSL), Korean players (you said korean players OR korean qualifier, not both) and the prizepool is higher than 2K.
|
On August 09 2024 19:45 GoloSC2 wrote:
i was expecting a ranking of rankings, am slightly disappointed that we haven't gone meta yet
haha same !
|
This is a fascinating approach—really appreciate the depth and logic behind your weighting system. Makes for a compelling GOAT discussion!
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
On July 05 2025 00:00 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +But while herO has now won more money than any other protoss I do not believe he is the protoss GOAT. Which gives you two options: Either prizemoney is a bad option to calculate the GOAT or you specifically start manipulating the statistic until it gives you the "correct" answer...but then why have a statistic in the first place? The entire era- and balance-weighting is a flawed concept to begin with considering how subjective it is, it really does not get improved by also "punishing" big prizepools, which usually correspond with important titles. Also...why did you disqualify WCS Europe/America? WCS Europe 2014 Season 1, in which MMA placed 2nd, fulfills all your criteria: Offline (mostly), not an invitational (same format as GSL), Korean players (you said korean players OR korean qualifier, not both) and the prizepool is higher than 2K.
Are you really taking this list seriously? There is a 4 times multiplier on era, which no sound mathemetical approach would suggest. Players get penalized for solo carrying their race. The obvious language used... like what :D
And I can't decide... are these last two posts written by a person trying to troll hype or ridicule this thread, or are they actually bot accounts programmed to do that? The first text is definitely written by AI.
|
Honestly, the competitiveness in SC2 between today and the early 2010s is, in my opinion, the difference between State HS football vs NCAA D1. I'd put the number somewhere around 10x difference.
The typical peak age of esports players is the early-20s. My question is, who, amongst anyone that is reputable today, is 21 (US drinking age) or younger? I don't know any today. And i've watched every single premier tournament since Day 1 in SC2 and played. In early-2010s, literally half the pros are 21 or younger (unfortunatelly, including myself, and not anymore).
I think it makes sense to have an era-multiplier, the real question is how do we assign the #, rather than whether we should. Afterall, any serious SC2 professional, analyst, or fan, would 100% know, today's SC2 is nowhere near as competitive as years ago. What this number is, I can't objectively tell you, but subjectively, probably somewhere around 10x compared to the most competitive era back then.
Back then, things were exciting, new up and coming players are popping up left and right. Now, I can easily look at the list, and tell you exactly the name of the few players that will win, and their likely % of winning.
|
On July 07 2025 23:51 johnnyh123 wrote:
Honestly, the competitiveness in SC2 between today and the early 2010s is, in my opinion, the difference between State HS football vs NCAA D1. I'd put the number somewhere around 10x difference.
The typical peak age of esports players is the early-20s. My question is, who, amongst anyone that is reputable today, is 21 (US drinking age) or younger? I don't know any today. And i've watched every single premier tournament since Day 1 in SC2 and played. In early-2010s, literally half the pros are 21 or younger (unfortunatelly, including myself, and not anymore).
I think it makes sense to have an era-multiplier, the real question is how do we assign the #, rather than whether we should. Afterall, any serious SC2 professional, analyst, or fan, would 100% know, today's SC2 is nowhere near as competitive as years ago. What this number is, I can't objectively tell you, but subjectively, probably somewhere around 10x compared to the most competitive era back then.
Back then, things were exciting, new up and coming players are popping up left and right. Now, I can easily look at the list, and tell you exactly the name of the few players that will win, and their likely % of winning.
There is a really interesting debate to be have (not just for SC2) what exactly is to be considered harder: To win a tournament with three SSS-Tier players or to win one with 10 A-Tiers
For example: For almost 20 years, the professional male Tennis was dominated by three players. Djokovic, Federer and Nadal did win essentially all Grand Slams (I think Murray has won one), they were practically always three of the four last players. And none of them really did get worse, they only got older, which eventually relegated them out.
So can you really say it is "easier" to win a Grand Slam in 2016 because you know that the winner will be one of three guys? Or wouldn't you say it is infinitely harder to win against these monsters?
In Women Tennis (and I'm not getting into any comparison between the skill level of male and female tennis players here), the situation is much more open. There are some very good players, but mostly it is really open who will win any given Grand Slam, has been for years I think.
At the start of SC2, everything was new and exciting and therefore there were a lot of players who could grab a win, especially considering that not every "S-Tier" labeled event had GSL-Koreans in it. But that also meant, as an up-and-coming player, you didn't need to close as much of a gap. Today, if you would pickup SC2, you would need to close a 10 to 15 year gap to close the experience against Serral and Maru. Even Reynor and Clem play this game for 10-ish years by now and they are considered to be the "young people".
So is it really harder to win a bracket where you have to play against, idk, TaeJa, TRUE and Dream...or if you have to win against Serral or Maru or Clem? Not even to mention the chance that you might need to beat all of them to win something big
|
On July 05 2025 14:56 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2025 00:00 Balnazza wrote:But while herO has now won more money than any other protoss I do not believe he is the protoss GOAT. Which gives you two options: Either prizemoney is a bad option to calculate the GOAT or you specifically start manipulating the statistic until it gives you the "correct" answer...but then why have a statistic in the first place? The entire era- and balance-weighting is a flawed concept to begin with considering how subjective it is, it really does not get improved by also "punishing" big prizepools, which usually correspond with important titles. Also...why did you disqualify WCS Europe/America? WCS Europe 2014 Season 1, in which MMA placed 2nd, fulfills all your criteria: Offline (mostly), not an invitational (same format as GSL), Korean players (you said korean players OR korean qualifier, not both) and the prizepool is higher than 2K. Are you really taking this list seriously? There is a 4 times multiplier on era, which no sound mathemetical approach would suggest. Players get penalized for solo carrying their race. The obvious language used... like what :D And I can't decide... are these last two posts written by a person trying to troll hype or ridicule this thread, or are they actually bot accounts programmed to do that? The first text is definitely written by AI.
It’s honestly no different than yours at a conceptual level
|
On July 05 2025 14:56 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2025 00:00 Balnazza wrote:But while herO has now won more money than any other protoss I do not believe he is the protoss GOAT. Which gives you two options: Either prizemoney is a bad option to calculate the GOAT or you specifically start manipulating the statistic until it gives you the "correct" answer...but then why have a statistic in the first place? The entire era- and balance-weighting is a flawed concept to begin with considering how subjective it is, it really does not get improved by also "punishing" big prizepools, which usually correspond with important titles. Also...why did you disqualify WCS Europe/America? WCS Europe 2014 Season 1, in which MMA placed 2nd, fulfills all your criteria: Offline (mostly), not an invitational (same format as GSL), Korean players (you said korean players OR korean qualifier, not both) and the prizepool is higher than 2K. Are you really taking this list seriously? There is a 4 times multiplier on era, which no sound mathemetical approach would suggest. Players get penalized for solo carrying their race. The obvious language used... like what :D And I can't decide... are these last two posts written by a person trying to troll hype or ridicule this thread, or are they actually bot accounts programmed to do that? The first text is definitely written by AI.
I take it just as seriously as any other list that thinks WoL, HotS and LotV are comparable games that can have a unified GOAT, or that Protoss, Terran and Zerg are comparable races that can have a unified GOAT, so I guess I take it just as seriously as your list.
At least Miz went to the effort of writing some genuinely entertaining articles to go alongside their rating!
And yes, those posts are clearly by bots and should be reported. Have you not noticed that bots are becoming a big problem around here? Damn varmints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
