|
|
Post by honkey on Aug 23, 2012 1:32:01 GMT 2
I am not fighting us vs then arguments. Obviously players are better now, and it would be interesting to see what a larger player base would have done had it lasted.
But I will say... this draft tournament is far more Competitive. Its is not a forgone conclusion who is going to win, unlike the last 2 mwcs where everyone on bulls/Sp knew that they were going to win. That roster (especially bulls with kirk and abs not even considering myself in this conversation) wasn't going to be stopped, as you saw with the most pathetic finals ever played.
Now you take a player off of the 2nd best team (EW) and move him to the best team and you create the same scenario. I am not complaining but I am pointing out that you cannot call that more competitive when your worst player goes from hadiez to someone like brasil warrior. I would love to see you argue this point.. .and i am sure you will try and convince yourself you are right, which you won be. This draft tournament is the most competitive tournament in at least 3 years, despite the fact that there is shit for players. And competitive doesn't mean people are taking it as seriously, but the game outcomes are much tougher to predict with all the variables. It isn't O no I am having a bad game, good thing I have paris, gk, and cruniac to rape face and make up for poor play. The role of a power hitter is amplified in this scenario much more as there is a much smaller margin of error.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmo on Aug 23, 2012 1:49:29 GMT 2
I think the whole "old vs now" argument that people make is much grayer than people like to make it to be. If you look at a majority of the good players from back then that play now they are still some of the best. Are the players better now? Yeah, sure because they game has adapted and the players that still play have adapted with it...as far as trying to argue that the past 3-4 mwc's are more competitive than tournaments from awhile ago there really isn't an argument...you would have a better argument saying that mwc 03-07 were the most competitive because the game had become pretty complete at that point and there still was a large enough player base that you didn't only have to win 2 real matches to win the tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 2:06:47 GMT 2
not sure who you are talking to honkey, but I am not really convinced that this tournament is more competitive and it is waaaaay too early to tell. first of all, we only have 4 teams. 2nd of all, we already have a 4-1 match which is a pretty clear blowout, and I am sure that will not be the only one. Yea it puts much greater emphasis on the better players, and in the common problem of team turnout, this just makes it even more volatile when your only good players can't make it. 3rd of all, in the one other match so far that was close, the quality of the play in the match was horrible. so does closer matches of really shitty play on both sides really mean it is more competitive? I would disagree.
But even if you would agree, my guess is this format of tournament really won't end up providing much closer matches even.
Also, no one knew for sure who would win the last 2 mwc's, bullz and SP were underdogs both years going into the finals. It is easy to say that we all knew for sure in hindsight.
I do have ideas to improve upon this kind of draft tournament which would essentially make it more of a blended hybrid between draft and traditional, but I don't really care all that much about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by honkey on Aug 23, 2012 2:10:49 GMT 2
So essentially what you are saying is.... Deer vs age is equally competitive to Bulls vs deer? Even bulls vs deer is a shitty looking match, but then again so was the finals last year with the top 2 teams. And asmos team had his 2 best players not even show. Not a very fair comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmo on Aug 23, 2012 2:12:42 GMT 2
Top 4 actually
|
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 2:13:16 GMT 2
im not sure how you came to that conclusion based on what i said. and about asmo's 2 best players not showing, that was exactly one of my points.
my point was competitiveness is close matches and high quality play. its yet to be seen if this tournament will really provide either of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by honkey on Aug 23, 2012 2:16:41 GMT 2
because you said noone cares about this tournament therefore it isnt competitive. I said I beg to differ... there is no way to tell who is going to win the matches hence it is more competitive. and the ALL AROUND quality of play is def higher in this format. Maybe the peak isn't, but if you had 10 teams drafted in this fashion you would have some talent disparity yes... but you sure as shit wouldnt be anything like bulls vs Age or Gru etc. More like a bunch of tss vs r3 which sure as *cruiser* adds a lot more drama to the tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmo on Aug 23, 2012 2:16:42 GMT 2
im not sure how you came to that conclusion based on what i said. and about asmo's 2 best players not showing, that was exactly one of my points. my point was competitiveness is close matches and high quality play. its yet to be seen if this tournament will really provide either of those. I'll agree with that but I don't think it's fair to make a judgement after one week. That is one of the reasons I hosted this tournament to see if adding new ideas in a tournament setting would improve tournament play overall. |
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 2:25:45 GMT 2
i later said the mid-level players like yourself care a lot more about this than the top players.
asmo that is what i said, its yet to be seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by eastwind on Aug 23, 2012 2:30:25 GMT 2
So this is Phod's list from 2001 – It's just interesting to note that he says myrk and tirri got good at a point where the top players had left myth, so this argument was going even then lol.
Best Myth II Players Ever:
1. guttermouth - The man, the Myth, the legend... once beat a team of seven players alone on Desert Territories. A master of one versus one, an excellent free-for-all player, and arguably the best player on Civil Order and the Street Fighters. Effective with every unit type. To emphasize his importance even further, Civil lost its only team tournament when playing without guttermouth (NML2).
2. Gore - Mr. 80% himself... The time is now... Though you could debate the extent of his skills, Gore was difficult to beat in one on one or free-for-all situations. Gore had a tendency to let his ego control his decision-making in team games. Without faith in his teammates, Gore often took 70% or greater for himself...and managed to win. But those decisions finally caught up with him and he could no longer give Giamilton 1% and hope to be victorious.
3. My modem is on fire - One of the old school veterans and winner of several TFL tournaments and tied for first in the prestigious Trial by Combat Myth II tournament (arguably the last... and only... pure Myth II FFA tournament). Proof that you don't have to talk trash to be a great Myth player.
4. ruiner - Civil Order's primary captain through inception to Major League Myth 2, ruiner could work magic with a mixed flank and seemed to be a step ahead of everyone else with a dwarf and archers.
5. Ananab Tilps - Another old school veteran who found both TFL and SB success as both an individual and member of Civil Order. Tied for first in the Myth II FFA Trial by Combat tournament and served a key role as both captain and player in Civil and Street Fighter success.
6. Odin - Hard to dispute Odin's all-around skills. He's won team tournaments, one on one tournaments, two on two tournaments, and placed well in free-for-all tournaments. He even won some WW2 tournaments.
7. Scorpio - Tied for first in Trial by Combat and shared in BMF's success with Modem. Proved his proficiency in one on one (via the ladder), free for all, and team games.
8. Drizzt - Love him or hate him, he won three straight individual tournaments, which makes it hard to argue that he doesn't belong on the list. Nay-sayers might point out that these wins came when most of the best players (the top 5 for instance) had already moved on.
9. hitlow - A clever player with a firm grasp of successful Myth strategy. Once he broke from the chains of Team Carn, hitlow emerged as a key role player and team captain.
10. Myrkridon - Like Drizzt, Myrkridon achieved most of his success late in Myth II but it's still impossible to argue against the victories and the skills.
11. Phod - I've put myself at #11 to avoid accusations of M2SBR. However, I will point out that I have been in more Myth 2 Tournament finals than any other player. Eight team tournament finals (8-0) and six individual tournament finals... (okay, I'm 0-6 there). 14 tournament finals. Hard to argue against that folks! 14!
M. BISON *SF* STREET FIGHTERS ON YAZ AZZ
A-left-Z-Z-right-up-Z: *PSYCHO EGO CRUSHER*
"MBison's post was factual, descriptive, concerned a subject of interest to every MWC player ("on topic"), and without profanity or crudity. The mediocrities out there could respond with "flames," but the message itself was no "flame" nor was it an incitement to anything but to reconsider what "prestige" really amounts to in this game.
-- Poohbear '00
|
|
|
|
Post by honkey on Aug 23, 2012 2:32:51 GMT 2
I never said I cared. The only tournaments i have super cared about was mwc 11 (before i spun out) and one of those previous tournaments with abs monty and myrk where we were the first legit new team to form. If you think i give 2 shits about this tournament or even the most recent mwc you are very mistaken. I am competitive and try to show up, but thats about the end of it. In fact half of last mwc i got kicked from game lobbies to dl the maps. But other than mwc 11 i generally show up as Sundays work amazingly for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 2:43:57 GMT 2
yea even 2001 was the end of myth apparently.
I remember 1v1ing guttermouth and he didn't impress me even back then. over half of the players on that list are nothing special.
okay honkey well, you and other mid-level players cared as in you much preferred this tournament format as opposed to mwc. happy yet with my wording or you want to nitpick this some more?
|
|
|
|
Post by honkey on Aug 23, 2012 3:05:58 GMT 2
I am just arguing your claim that the tournament was less competitive, and a logic behind why it was more competitive. I never said I preferred either format. I feel with full participation and enough teams and players a draft system could yield far more interesting results than the current format. But I also admitted that the best teams in mwc play on a much higher level than any draft teams in this size player base would yield.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 3:23:27 GMT 2
christ dude, i already said its yet to be seen 3 times. and im pretty sure you do care since you are trying to nitpick my roster even over something so trivial as drunken.
|
|
|
|
Post by myrk on Aug 23, 2012 3:47:33 GMT 2
If you follow the same argument as myrk, flatline, and others that tournaments back then were way more competitive, how could roster filler such as myself place 8th out of the 80+ teams in mwc2k1? I actually wasn't even really a roster filler. I played most if not all of the games and had a prominent role on the team, helping to cap and strat at times even way back then. So you barely made the top 10th percentile of mwc01's rankings and this means the tournament wasn't competitive. Gotcha. Myself and the rest of Cacra were most certainly 2-3 ballers by today's standards though, and with much shittier internet connections, there is no doubt about that. I just wonder how we placed 8th being as mediocre as we were in what is often considered by those that cling to the past as the most competitive mwc of all time. A similar quality team of 2-3 ballers from this mwc would have a placement not too different. HRMMMMM. Again, you seem to think 8th place is special. Cacra wasn't exactly a terrible team, just not a top contender, so 8th place is about right. And how does this contradict the argument that you only get high placements now because most of the good players no longer play or just play casually? I like how you think you and Cacra were the only ones with shitty internet connections as well. what is always curious about the debate is the "now" side will reference screenshots and films from mwc finals back then as solid evidence (such as grim's article) for their argument, and the "then" side (which coincidentally also tends to be an older age group of players) just ignores said screenshots and films and rambles on and on about their memory of the time. There are plenty of replays of you and your teams sucking ass out there, the reason why I don't post screenshots and replays of particular games and then draw conclusions about how those teams always played like shit is because only stupid people would think that and I happen to not be stupid. www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KqXoC1Zn8w&feature=g-all-u^ There's a shoutcast of a 5-game series between professional Starcraft 2 players, and it's full of shitty play and stupid mistakes, therefore these players suck and everyone sucks at Starcraft 2 now, because we all know noone ever has an off day - GKG logic |
|
