Where do yall rank talon with pati?

#38

Mortadelo

Frags

–

But if ZETA do well for more events, it'll turn out that maybe ZETA didn't overperform, you just don't know how to judge teams outside of results and recency bias.

Yes, what is more correct to you, give. a team the title of being good after 1 tournament and then expecting them to do well on the next one, or waiting until they perform well again to give them that title? Literally the opposite of recency bias

lmao. I guess up until Champs you thought LOUD overperformed at M1 because they got grouped at M2.
Except from what I remember you never said that. So what gives? Where's the consistency in your logic? Did you say ENVY overperformed at M3 when they got grouped at Champs 2021?

Sure did, I do not think a team is the best in the world after 1 tournament they are the ones to have to prove that they are not a fluke throughout consistency , we're not the ones who have to prove that they are not that good, that's not how competition works. Could they be proof me wrong like the others 2 did? Yeah, have they yet? No, so until they proof otherwise they underperformed in my opinion, but it's clear that you don't agree so let's just drop it and agree to disagree

#40

nutab1e

Frags

–

bro you are insane lmfaoooo

#46

Mortadelo

Frags

–

Go ahead, "defend" the people from me

#49

nutab1e

Frags

–

the problem is you think your opinion is a fact and somehow better than someone else's. When you can't escalate your rhetoric to the point where they leave you with the last comment thereby letting you "win", you basically end up with pointless clown fiestas like this, basically you've realized that both opinions are valid but you can't back down because of your stupid ego. You're unable to have real discussion with people of different opinions and it's funny, if not genuinely concerning.

#52

archetype

Frags

–

it is what it is

#53

Mortadelo

Frags

–

I have recognized being proved wrong several times during this thread but you for some reason seem to only see the bad parts, you have made me the cross and it's not gonna change so I'm gonna stop pretending like I can (you can win). All I'm gonna ask you is to let me fucking live and stop replying to every single one of my posts, I already know your opinion about me and you do not need to remind me everyday of my life thanks, you should go ahead and be a little more self critic before telling people on the internet how to act, because yeah I might defend my arguments, arguments and people are different things. Act like you're not acting with superiority too if you want and make you feel better

If I get in long arguments it's 1, cause I genuinely enjoy debating and YES, trying to convince people, why would that be wrong, aren't we all old enough to chose when something is worth being convinced of or not?

And 2 most of the team people are nice here and always end up well unless it's with you

#54

nutab1e

Frags

–

I'm gonna reply last so I can win thanks 🍿🍿🍿

BTW why should I give you respect and leave you alone when you don't respect anyone else unless they go on a 50 thread fucking CRUSADE to express the most basic of opinions

#56

Mortadelo

Frags

–

Why is debating and trying to convince people not respecting people? And why would you out of everyone on this site judge what is respect, do you consider yourself a respectful user?

Sure go ahead, take the win if it makes you feel better, goodnight

#59

nutab1e

Frags

–

Bro thinks everyone wants to debate his nerd ass 💀. Taking the win thx

#41

archetype

Frags

–

Yes, what is more correct to you, give. a team the title of being good after 1 tournament and then expecting them to do well on the next one, or waiting until they perform well again to give them that title? Literally the opposite of recency bias

What is more correct to me is not judging off of results and instead having the brainpower to be able to tell how good a team is without relying on the scoreline. You yourself already know how unreliable judging teams off results are, with how you mentioned scrim results. But you only talk about good tournaments, bad tournaments, whatever. That's why I've been trying to show you how tournament results do not matter as much as you think they do. LOUD got grouped, OPTC got grouped, doesn't matter. You're just defaulting to saying a team overperformed until they get another result, which is a terrible line of reasoning. Peaking=/=overperforming. Falling off=/=overperforming.

Sure did, I do not think a team is the best in the world after 1 tournament they are the ones to have to prove that they are not a fluke throughout consistency , we're not the ones who have to prove that they are not that good, that's not how competition works. Could they be proof me wrong like the others 2 did? Yeah, have they yet? No, so until they proof otherwise they underperformed in my opinion, but it's clear that you don't agree so let's just drop it and agree to disagree

So how about you just...not judge based off tournaments lmao, that way you don't look like a clown all the time because you think a team overperformed because they did bad recently, only for them to bounce back next tournament (LOUD, OPTC). Or you think a team is good because they did well recently, only for them to get grouped the next tournament (PRX). (btw, not saying PRX is bad, they're just a clear example of how unreliable it is to rank teams based off of results only)
At least have SOMETHING to back your reasoning outside of results, Jesus Christ. Come on, I thought you were one of the more rational people on this site.

#43

Mortadelo

Frags

–

What is more correct to me is not judging off of results and instead having the brainpower to be able to tell how good a team is without relying on the scoreline. You yourself already know how unreliable judging teams off results are, with how you mentioned scrim results. But you only talk about good tournaments, bad tournaments, whatever. That's why I've been trying to show you how tournament results do not matter as much as you think they do. LOUD got grouped, OPTC got grouped, doesn't matter.

Fair enough, yes tournament results are not everything sure but the how do we judge their performance? You can say you liked how they played, and someone else can say they don't it's a completely subjective opinion, we can do it based on that? Yeah sure, but then are we speculate how well Zeta would have done in Playoffs? Tell me in you opinion who could have Zeta beaten in playoffs comparing the ways they played, and don't say it's hard to tell.

At least have SOMETHING to back your reasoning outside of results

What else can I add tho? Like I saw the games, and I do not think Zeta played their games better than other teams, that's it. I'm not an analyst tho that's why I usually don't mention that part, simply cause I rather not to talk about the things I don't know

#51

archetype

Frags

–

I do not think a team is the best in the world after 1 tournament they are the ones to have to prove that they are not a fluke throughout consistency

hence me mentioning fluke in the other post.

You can say you liked how they played, and someone else can say they don't it's a completely subjective opinion, we can do it based on that?

yeah, there are different playstyles. There are different stylistic matchups. DRX's style shut down PRX aggression, but PRX's aggression shut down OpTic, but OpTic shut down DRX. There's no objective way to view the game. And that's why there is discussion. Shit's subjective, and at least when you discuss about it from that perspective you'll have better reasons than "oh they got grouped recently". I would love to discuss about the variables within this game more than whatever this conversation is about tbh.

Yeah sure, but then are we speculate how well Zeta would have done in Playoffs? Tell me in you opinion who could have Zeta beaten in playoffs comparing the ways they played, and don't say it's hard to tell.

Yes, you can speculate. You can judge by seeing the playstyles of each team. For example I was able to tell FPX would likely beat PRX at Copenhagen because they had more experience playing against aggressive teams due to their games in Group B, where Northeption, Xerxia, and even DRX all showed that typical Asian aggression against FPX. GUILD and FNC did not have that experience.

I'd have to watch the ZETA games at Champs again but I'm doubtful they would have gone super far in playoffs simply because they literally did not have enough practice time with TENN, and it showed. I think they had a realistic chance of at least beating TL and LEV though.

What else can I add tho? Like I saw the games, and I do not think Zeta played their games better than other teams, that's it. I'm not an analyst tho that's why I usually don't mention that part, simply cause I rather not to talk about the things I don't know

Then you just say that instead of "Zeta overperformed at M1" lmao?

#55

Mortadelo

Frags

–

yeah, there are different playstyles. There are different stylistic matchups. DRX's style shut down PRX aggression, but PRX's aggression shut down OpTic, but OpTic shut down DRX. There's no objective way to view the game. And that's why there is discussion. Shit's subjective, and at least when you discuss about it from that perspective you'll have better reasons than "oh they got grouped recently". I would love to discuss about the variables within this game more than whatever this conversation is about tbh.

Fair enough dude that's a valid way of seeing it, it's just that as I said I'm not an analyst so I don't feel comfortable evaluating that stuff, so instead I go back to things I can quantify, but ofc how a team plays matters

Then you just say that instead of "Zeta overperformed at M1" lmao?

Do you prefer if I say they are not as good as they were at M1? Is that a better term to use? Cause that is basically what I mean by overperform

#57

archetype

Frags

–

Perhaps you mean to say ZETA fell off. Which is something I'm more open to agreeing with.

I wrote this earlier, and this is what essentially what you said just now.

Do you prefer if I say they are not as good as they were at M1? Is that a better term to use? Cause that is basically what I mean by overperform

Yes, that is a better term to use. There is a fine but noticeable line between saying a team overperformed and a team is not as good as they used to be.

#60

Mortadelo

Frags

–

Then I guess the only thing we disagree on is on the definition of what's what and not what ac tally happened, because to me "falling off" implies that they are performing bad or significantly worse now, meanwhile I chose the term overperformed as saying that they had a higher peak of what their average level of gameplay is.