Can't believe Vega have been playing so well it is nuts! Lets see what they can achieve with the big boys in play now.
Hoping SK don't lose to Space Soldiers again like last time lol! SK with Felps is an issue though, hoping he wants to go out on a high though and plays really well.
100Thieves absence + horrible seeding means you get a first round with C9 versus G2.
I hope one of two things happens rather soonish: - the Majors stop being the most prestigious tournament in CS (and we get back to tournaments that crown the best of the best, like Katowice, basically what happened before the Major circuit, and in 1.6/Source). - the Majors run a decent format
On January 17 2018 21:10 Ragnarork wrote: 100Thieves absence + horrible seeding means you get a first round with C9 versus G2.
I hope one of two things happens rather soonish: - the Majors stop being the most prestigious tournament in CS (and we get back to tournaments that crown the best of the best, like Katowice, basically what happened before the Major circuit, and in 1.6/Source). - the Majors run a decent format
I think #1 is more likely but we never know...
I dont think there was any seeding, Wasnt it just draw a Legend vs a new challenger for Round 1 and 100 Theives not being there basically fucked it up. I see your point but thats a minor gripe since its a swiss system.
I really dont feel like Majors are a big thing in CS. I dont feel any of the majors last year where as good as events as Katowice or Cologne or Oakland or Epicenter or Sydney, heck even Blast.
Well, Majors still have the stickers, the souvenir cases, and the overall vibe that these are the biggest moments in the CS:GO calendar, and no other event beats that. They're still "the biggest thing in CS" no matter what.
In terms of competition though, events like Dreamhack Masters Malmö, which had 12 or 13 teams of the top 15 at the time present, make a very strong case for being the most competitive events. When you look at the groups and the bracket, there's literally no way you could win that with an easy path for example. Groups weren't necessarily balanced (lol group A vs. Group C) but with a three stage bracket and this lineup, you'd have to beat very good teams in a Bo3 anyway to win the whole thing.
Basically, not really what happened at PGL Krakow, although it could have been worse if Immortals had won.
I'm really looking forward to two tourneys: IEM Katowice and the next StarLadder, as they promise to guarantee some very competitive environments.
On January 19 2018 21:22 Ragnarork wrote: Well, Majors still have the stickers, the souvenir cases, and the overall vibe that these are the biggest moments in the CS:GO calendar, and no other event beats that. They're still "the biggest thing in CS" no matter what.
I see your point. I dont do hats or stickers so that part of the game doesnt really register with me.
On January 20 2018 02:27 Ragnarork wrote: North losing to Vega, the fragility of the Danes in Bo1 continues.
i'd say everyone is fragile at this point in bo1
it must not be bo1 in the hardest tourney at any point, because otherwise too much randomness involved
Meh, Vega is looking pretty strong and North has been lackluster for a while.
I said this before already but i think bo1 randomness is way overstated.
how so? Well it is fair in terms of conditions, everyone has to play bo1.
but since our sample of games consisted of bo1 - the amount of randomness is much higher in comparison to bo3, pure math
yes it gives u more "show" because underdogs from nowhere may play a game of their life, on a flipside we got lack of consistency
imagine football is played till let's say - 1st goal, such randomness would be also overstated? :D
He didnt say that bo1s are more random or less random than BO3's,
He is saying their randomness is overstated. And I tend to agree.
What matters more is the nature of the win rather than whether its a bo1 or not in the swiss system. Based on what i have seen so far everyone will respect Vega now.
And with respect to your football example
Winning a map is hardly scoring a goal. its like winning a leg.
On January 20 2018 02:27 Ragnarork wrote: North losing to Vega, the fragility of the Danes in Bo1 continues.
i'd say everyone is fragile at this point in bo1
it must not be bo1 in the hardest tourney at any point, because otherwise too much randomness involved
Meh, Vega is looking pretty strong and North has been lackluster for a while.
I said this before already but i think bo1 randomness is way overstated.
how so? Well it is fair in terms of conditions, everyone has to play bo1.
but since our sample of games consisted of bo1 - the amount of randomness is much higher in comparison to bo3, pure math
yes it gives u more "show" because underdogs from nowhere may play a game of their life, on a flipside we got lack of consistency
imagine football is played till let's say - 1st goal, such randomness would be also overstated? :D
He didnt say that bo1s are more random or less random than BO3's,
He is saying their randomness is overstated. And I tend to agree.
What matters more is the nature of the win rather than whether its a bo1 or not in the swiss system. Based on what i have seen so far everyone will respect Vega now.
And with respect to your football example
Winning a map is hardly scoring a goal. its like winning a leg.
It was not the best analogy, yea, but u get ma point?
Stronger team has time and space to recover playing underdog in bo3 after losing first map. Underdog has more chances to lose 2-0 vs stronger team in bo3, but moslty it would be 2-1. Stronger team has no chance to recover in bo1, it's not overstated as well, lower sample results higher random.
Would u argue that, let's say - Innovation tends to lose more bo1 series then bo3/bo5/bo7 overall? I'm sure that longer series tends to show less randomness due to size of game samples.
Following such logic - going into play-offs and finals bo1 should not be a problem, because u know, randomness is overstated.