Idk much about some of the other additions but xia core being reunited with pati has caused me to overdose on hopium, i rate them 4th in apac rn under drx, prx, and gen.g. Zeta might be above them aswell but idk im prayging for pati to be a demon like he was before
3
Where do yall rank talon with pati?
posted in
General Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
nobrewow [#6]pati was competing in OW, its insane aim wise, no cap so i believe he is gonna be demon like before, i think he only needs to learn Neon as it is meta in some maps, becaue his jett and raze was pretty good
Ye but like u said he plays ow so neon should be ez for him cuz the movement is so overwatch-esque
archetype [#7]no way Talon is better than DRX/PRX/ZETA
Zeta need to get their level back tho, they are definitely beatable on a long competition
Mortadelo [#9]Zeta need to get their level back tho, they are definitely beatable on a long competition
maybe, but ZETA also beat PRX before. And they had good performances in the hardest group at Champs. I would put Talon anywhere between 4th to 6th.
archetype [#10]maybe, but ZETA also beat PRX before. And they had good performances in the hardest group at Champs. I would put Talon anywhere between 4th to 6th.
But you can’t expect Zeta to always perform like they did that masters, it was a clear over perform
Mortadelo [#11]But you can’t expect Zeta to always perform like they did that masters, it was a clear over perform
was prx not a clear over perform tho? talon owns both (HOPIUM)
Mortadelo [#11]But you can’t expect Zeta to always perform like they did that masters, it was a clear over perform
you could say the same for prx tbh
nutab1e [#12]was prx not a clear over perform tho? talon owns both (HOPIUM)
Their 2nd place? Yeah probably but in average PRX feels a lot more like a Playoff team while Zeta looks a lot more like a Groups team if you know what I mean
Mortadelo [#11]But you can’t expect Zeta to always perform like they did that masters, it was a clear over perform
Ngel If Zeta was in any other group imo they woulda qualified, Laz was still the top chamber even though he mostly played other agents (so stats technically vary), and overall had close games against loud, and prolly coulda did well in playoffs as well
Mortadelo [#14]Their 2nd place? Yeah probably but in average PRX feels a lot more like a Playoff team while Zeta looks a lot more like a Groups team if you know what I mean
fair, I could see that flip flopping depending on meta tho
nobrewow [#6]pati was competing in OW, its insane aim wise, no cap so i believe he is gonna be demon like before, i think he only needs to learn Neon as it is meta in some maps, becaue his jett and raze was pretty good
He played Neon alot in scrim
CanadianLegend [#15]Ngel If Zeta was in any other group imo they woulda qualified, Laz was still the top chamber even though he mostly played other agents (so stats technically vary), and overall had close games against loud, and prolly coulda did well in playoffs as well
No man, ZETA was not better than FPX, FNC, or TL at all
Mortadelo [#11]But you can’t expect Zeta to always perform like they did that masters, it was a clear over perform
eh. their scrim results at champs proved they were not overperforming during m1.
archetype [#19]eh. their scrim results at champs proved they were not overperforming during m1.
No scrims do not prove anything imo
Mortadelo [#20]No scrims do not prove anything imo
they have had good scrim results with top teams in Champs. It does mean that ZETA weren't overperforming. It doesn't necessarily mean they were better than the top teams in Champs though.
archetype [#22]they have had good scrim results with top teams in Champs. It does mean that ZETA weren't overperforming. It doesn't necessarily mean they were better than the top teams in Champs though.
No it does not dude, what does "good at scrims" heard it way too many times and I do not believe it. Simple question to see if they were overperforming, do you think they are gonna make top 8 at Sao Paulo?
Mortadelo [#23]No it does not dude, what does "good at scrims" heard it way too many times and I do not believe it. Simple question to see if they were overperforming, do you think they are gonna make top 8 at Sao Paulo?
I do not believe it
I'm not telling you that they're good I'm telling you that they can hold their own. Scrim results don't mean much, however if a team is doing well in scrims generally speaking it means they have some level of skill. And it definitely means that they weren't overperforming up until then.
You only believe they are overperforming because they did not get results the two tournaments after. I'm saying that performance wise they are still performing to a similar level. And the evidence I have is that they performed well in the toughest group, and had good scrim results against the other top teams. So it was not an overperformance in M1.
As for top 8 at Sao Paulo it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to judge because half the teams at the tournament are completely new. 0 idea how they will play.
And it perfectly illustrates the flaw in your thinking. You only look at results. You don't look at actual gameplay.
archetype [#24]I do not believe it
I'm not telling you that they're good I'm telling you that they can hold their own. Scrim results don't mean much, however if a team is doing well in scrims generally speaking it means they have some level of skill. And it definitely means that they weren't overperforming up until then.
You only believe they are overperforming because they did not get results the two tournaments after. I'm saying that performance wise they are still performing to a similar level. And the evidence I have is that they performed well in the toughest group, and had good scrim results against the other top teams. So it was not an overperformance in M1.
As for top 8 at Sao Paulo it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to judge because half the teams at the tournament are completely new. 0 idea how they will play.
And it perfectly illustrates the flaw in your thinking. You only look at results. You don't look at actual gameplay.
I'm not telling you that they're good I'm telling you that they can hold their own. Scrim results don't mean much, however if a team is doing well in scrims generally speaking it means they have some level of skill. And it definitely means that they weren't overperforming up until then.
I don't think we're understanding each other here, idk how you define over performing but there is a big difference between over performing and "having some level of skill". Dude they are a great team but they are not as good as they showed to be that masters, there's literally no point to support that statement, but not being a top 4 in the world us not something to be ashamed of lmao
Mortadelo [#25]I'm not telling you that they're good I'm telling you that they can hold their own. Scrim results don't mean much, however if a team is doing well in scrims generally speaking it means they have some level of skill. And it definitely means that they weren't overperforming up until then.
I don't think we're understanding each other here, idk how you define over performing but there is a big difference between over performing and "having some level of skill". Dude they are a great team but they are not as good as they showed to be that masters, there's literally no point to support that statement, but not being a top 4 in the world us not something to be ashamed of lmao
How were they then overperforming then when their performance literally has not changed lol??? When they have similar performances against similar/higher calibre teams?
Imo, that means they have always been playing at that level, and therefore it is not an overperformance.
Don't forget that they literally only lost to LOUD at Champs. The same team that did not drop a map in playoffs until GF.
archetype [#26]How were they then overperforming then when their performance literally has not changed lol??? When they have similar performances against similar/higher calibre teams?
Imo, that means they have always been playing at that level, and therefore it is not an overperformance.Don't forget that they literally only lost to LOUD at Champs. The same team that did not drop a map in playoffs until GF.
Losing to NTH looks the same to you? Yeah sure they only lost to LOUD who came from losing to OPTC, yeah but let's be honest they struggled against BOOM who was clearly a bottom 3 team in the tournament and heir performance against LOUD was not good at all, they didn't give them much trouble unless for a couple LAZ plays. LOUD victories over teams like Leviatan seemed a lot more of a struggle. Dude you can think Zeta was a top 4 team in this Champs if that's what you want to believe but in my opinion they weren't better than any playoff team which to me proves an overperform last masters
Mortadelo [#28]Losing to NTH looks the same to you? Yeah sure they only lost to LOUD who came from losing to OPTC, yeah but let's be honest they struggled against BOOM who was clearly a bottom 3 team in the tournament and heir performance against LOUD was not good at all, they didn't give them much trouble unless for a couple LAZ plays. LOUD victories over teams like Leviatan seemed a lot more of a struggle. Dude you can think Zeta was a top 4 team in this Champs if that's what you want to believe but in my opinion they weren't better than any playoff team which to me proves an overperform last masters
Losing to NTH looks the same to you?
Literally leaving out the fact that ZETA coach and players said they were tired during GF, not to mention that one bad tournament means nothing. OpTic bombed out of Champs 2021, lmao.
Yeah sure they only lost to LOUD who came from losing to OPTC, yeah but let's be honest they struggled against BOOM who was clearly a bottom 3 team in the tournament
You act like 1: OPTC aren't a good team, and 2: BOOM didn't take OPTC to 3 maps. Sure, BOOM were bad but so what? Teams struggle against weak teams because no team at Champs was actually weak. DRX struggled against FURIA too lol.
heir performance against LOUD was not good at all
ZETA played well, LOUD just played better. I don't think it was ZETA playing that badly. And don't forget ZETA was playing with TENN who had like no practice and was coming off an eye injury.
Dude you can think Zeta was a top 4 team in this Champs if that's what you want to believe
Literally nobody said this. You are making stuff up. I'm saying they weren't overperforming but you're acting as if I think ZETA is top 4 in the world. Of course they're not, but that doesn't mean their M1 run was an overperformance. Would you have said that ENVY overperformed at M3 because they got grouped at Champs 2021? Lmao?
If you think that a justification for overperformance was not having the same results/similar results every tournament then every team outside of OPTC just overperformed.
archetype [#29]Losing to NTH looks the same to you?
Literally leaving out the fact that ZETA coach and players said they were tired during GF, not to mention that one bad tournament means nothing. OpTic bombed out of Champs 2021, lmao.
Yeah sure they only lost to LOUD who came from losing to OPTC, yeah but let's be honest they struggled against BOOM who was clearly a bottom 3 team in the tournament
You act like 1: OPTC aren't a good team, and 2: BOOM didn't take OPTC to 3 maps. Sure, BOOM were bad but so what? Teams struggle against weak teams because no team at Champs was actually weak. DRX struggled against FURIA too lol.
heir performance against LOUD was not good at all
ZETA played well, LOUD just played better. I don't think it was ZETA playing that badly. And don't forget ZETA was playing with TENN who had like no practice and was coming off an eye injury.
Dude you can think Zeta was a top 4 team in this Champs if that's what you want to believe
Literally nobody said this. You are making stuff up. I'm saying they weren't overperforming but you're acting as if I think ZETA is top 4 in the world. Of course they're not, but that doesn't mean their M1 run was an overperformance. Would you have said that ENVY overperformed at M3 because they got grouped at Champs 2021? Lmao?
If you think that a justification for overperformance was not having the same results/similar results every tournament then every team outside of OPTC just overperformed.
Literally leaving out the fact that ZETA coach and players said they were tired during GF, not to mention that one bad tournament means nothing. OpTic bombed out of Champs 2021, lmao.
That's the thing tho you can't call it a bad tournament when you have only had 1 good one
"Dude you can think Zeta was a top 4 team in this Champs if that's what you want to believe"
Literally nobody said this. You are making stuff up. I'm saying they weren't overperforming but you're acting as if I think ZETA is top 4 in the world. Of course they're not, but that doesn't mean their M1 run was an overperformance.
Again I don't think you understand my point at all, I can't explain it another way. If a team places higher than they should (You just recognized they are not top 4 like they placed) then its a fucking over perform that's literally all I'm saying dude
Mortadelo [#31]Literally leaving out the fact that ZETA coach and players said they were tired during GF, not to mention that one bad tournament means nothing. OpTic bombed out of Champs 2021, lmao.
That's the thing tho you can't call it a bad tournament when you have only had 1 good one
"Dude you can think Zeta was a top 4 team in this Champs if that's what you want to believe"
Literally nobody said this. You are making stuff up. I'm saying they weren't overperforming but you're acting as if I think ZETA is top 4 in the world. Of course they're not, but that doesn't mean their M1 run was an overperformance.
Again I don't think you understand my point at all, I can't explain it another way. If a team places higher than they should (You just recognized they are not top 4 like they placed) then its a fucking over perform that's literally all I'm saying dude
That's the thing tho you can't call it a bad tournament when you have only had 1 good one
this ZETA has played exactly 2 international tournaments, got 3rd at one, and then grouped at the other.
But they got grouped only because they lost to the eventual winners twice—the same team that didn't drop a map in playoffs, and only 1 in Grands. So that's an asterisk.
Again I don't think you understand my point at all, I can't explain it another way. If a team places higher than they should (You just recognized they are not top 4 like they placed) then its a fucking over perform that's literally all I'm saying dude
My point is ZETA did not place higher than they should though? They beat PRX, DRX, and TL. They made a convincing Lower Bracket run, even when they lost to G2 it was evident that ZETA were the better team, just extremely fatigued because they had played without any rest due to bad scheduling.
Would you agree that PRX were the 4th best team at Masters 1? That DRX were the 5th-6th best? That LOUD were 2nd best? That OpTic was the best? Then it is very clear that ZETA was the 3rd best team at the event. Simple as.
The only international team ZETA has lost to since M1 was fucking LOUD. That's it. They had no chance to play against other teams.
Currently, ZETA are not Top 4 in the world. That's obvious. But back during M1? Yes, they were. They deserved it. They played like a Top 4 team and got 3rd place deservedly. They still play the same way they did back at M1, the only difference I can see can easily be explained due to the lack of practice they had with TENN. They just don't have the results.
Ergo, I do not think they overperformed at all. I think their level of play at Champs shows that.
also mfw u say TL is better than ZETA even tho ZETA literally beat TL lol
archetype [#32]That's the thing tho you can't call it a bad tournament when you have only had 1 good one
this ZETA has played exactly 2 international tournaments, got 3rd at one, and then grouped at the other.
But they got grouped only because they lost to the eventual winners twice—the same team that didn't drop a map in playoffs, and only 1 in Grands. So that's an asterisk.
Again I don't think you understand my point at all, I can't explain it another way. If a team places higher than they should (You just recognized they are not top 4 like they placed) then its a fucking over perform that's literally all I'm saying dude
My point is ZETA did not place higher than they should though? They beat PRX, DRX, and TL. They made a convincing Lower Bracket run, even when they lost to G2 it was evident that ZETA were the better team, just extremely fatigued because they had played without any rest due to bad scheduling.
Would you agree that PRX were the 4th best team at Masters 1? That DRX were the 5th-6th best? That LOUD were 2nd best? That OpTic was the best? Then it is very clear that ZETA was the 3rd best team at the event. Simple as.
The only international team ZETA has lost to since M1 was fucking LOUD. That's it. They had no chance to play against other teams.
Currently, ZETA are not Top 4 in the world. That's obvious. But back during M1? Yes, they were. They deserved it. They played like a Top 4 team and got 3rd place deservedly. They still play the same way they did back at M1, the only difference I can see can easily be explained due to the lack of practice they had with TENN. They just don't have the results.
Ergo, I do not think they overperformed at all. I think their level of play at Champs shows that.also mfw u say TL is better than ZETA even tho ZETA literally beat TL lol
unstoppable force meets immovable object, thank you for doing the lord's work
nutab1e [#33]unstoppable force meets immovable object, thank you for doing the lord's work
just baffles me how one can think ZETA overperformed lol. They deserved the 3rd place at Reykjavik and nothing says they've gotten worse since then. There's a possibility, but nothing concrete lol. As far as it stands, ZETA did not overperform and what's more, within the VPL (as this thread was originally about), ZETA are still good because they literally have not lost to PRX, and are 1-1 with DRX. I believe they are 3rd best in the VPL, and there is a low probability of them losing to TALON, especially when even Northeption didn't.
archetype [#32]That's the thing tho you can't call it a bad tournament when you have only had 1 good one
this ZETA has played exactly 2 international tournaments, got 3rd at one, and then grouped at the other.
But they got grouped only because they lost to the eventual winners twice—the same team that didn't drop a map in playoffs, and only 1 in Grands. So that's an asterisk.
Again I don't think you understand my point at all, I can't explain it another way. If a team places higher than they should (You just recognized they are not top 4 like they placed) then its a fucking over perform that's literally all I'm saying dude
My point is ZETA did not place higher than they should though? They beat PRX, DRX, and TL. They made a convincing Lower Bracket run, even when they lost to G2 it was evident that ZETA were the better team, just extremely fatigued because they had played without any rest due to bad scheduling.
Would you agree that PRX were the 4th best team at Masters 1? That DRX were the 5th-6th best? That LOUD were 2nd best? That OpTic was the best? Then it is very clear that ZETA was the 3rd best team at the event. Simple as.
The only international team ZETA has lost to since M1 was fucking LOUD. That's it. They had no chance to play against other teams.
Currently, ZETA are not Top 4 in the world. That's obvious. But back during M1? Yes, they were. They deserved it. They played like a Top 4 team and got 3rd place deservedly. They still play the same way they did back at M1, the only difference I can see can easily be explained due to the lack of practice they had with TENN. They just don't have the results.
Ergo, I do not think they overperformed at all. I think their level of play at Champs shows that.also mfw u say TL is better than ZETA even tho ZETA literally beat TL lol
Overperforming does not mean you didn't deserve what you got, people keeps saying this every team deserves the spot they get that's how it works they earn it. Overperforming means that they have a better tournament that they usually do, hit shots that they don't usually hit, get in the mood yk. Do they deserve the placement? ofc they do, they earned it. It's what they did something you could expect them to repeat consistently? No it is not. Which means they had a tournament were they performed better than they usually do (overperform)
they finally have a raze/neon duelist (jit boys) and a goat apac OP that also is good enough on flexing (patiphan) of course sscary out of the roster is a donwgrade even if crws plays smokes since he was a initiator flex and not a main controller, but at least cypher will get a buff and sushiboys its one of the best cypher on apac so good news for him whos been under performing on lan. so for me if they play on their best 4th and if they under perform then 7th at least no way secret/rrq/GE do better imo.
Mortadelo [#35]Overperforming does not mean you didn't deserve what you got, people keeps saying this every team deserves the spot they get that's how it works they earn it. Overperforming means that they have a better tournament that they usually do, hit shots that they don't usually hit, get in the mood yk. Do they deserve the placement? ofc they do, they earned it. It's what they did something you could expect them to repeat consistently? No it is not. Which means they had a tournament were they performed better than they usually do (overperform)
It's what they did something you could expect them to repeat consistently? No it is not. Which means they had a tournament were they performed better than they usually do (overperform)
see below:
If you think that a justification for overperformance was not having the same results/similar results every tournament then every team outside of OPTC just overperformed.
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?
So where's the logical consistency?
Going off of what you said today, it seems that ZETA overperformed.
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.
But going off what you said before, it seems that ZETA didn't overperform.
Don't forget that the basis of this argument stems from you thinking ZETA might not actually be a top 3 team in the VPL (Valorant Pacific League). Don't forget that ZETA took wins off the clear Top 2 in that league as well (PRX & DRX)
Perhaps you mean to say ZETA fell off. Which is something I'm more open to agreeing with.
NV do not qualify to Iceland. They get 2nd at Berlin. They get grouped at Champs.
ZETA do not qualify to Copenhagen. They get 3rd at Reykajvik. They get grouped at Champs.
But I'm sure you didn't say NV overperformed at Berlin. So why are you saying it for ZETA?
archetype [#37]It's what they did something you could expect them to repeat consistently? No it is not. Which means they had a tournament were they performed better than they usually do (overperform)
see below:
If you think that a justification for overperformance was not having the same results/similar results every tournament then every team outside of OPTC just overperformed.
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?
So where's the logical consistency?
Going off of what you said today, it seems that ZETA overperformed.
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.
But going off what you said before, it seems that ZETA didn't overperform.Don't forget that the basis of this argument stems from you thinking ZETA might not actually be a top 3 team in the VPL (Valorant Pacific League). Don't forget that ZETA took wins off the clear Top 2 in that league as well (PRX & DRX)
Perhaps you mean to say ZETA fell off. Which is something I'm more open to agreeing with.
NV do not qualify to Iceland. They get 2nd at Berlin. They get grouped at Champs.
ZETA do not qualify to Copenhagen. They get 3rd at Reykajvik. They get grouped at Champs.
But I'm sure you didn't say NV overperformed at Berlin. So why are you saying it for ZETA?
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
archetype [#37]It's what they did something you could expect them to repeat consistently? No it is not. Which means they had a tournament were they performed better than they usually do (overperform)
see below:
If you think that a justification for overperformance was not having the same results/similar results every tournament then every team outside of OPTC just overperformed.
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?
So where's the logical consistency?
Going off of what you said today, it seems that ZETA overperformed.
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.
But going off what you said before, it seems that ZETA didn't overperform.Don't forget that the basis of this argument stems from you thinking ZETA might not actually be a top 3 team in the VPL (Valorant Pacific League). Don't forget that ZETA took wins off the clear Top 2 in that league as well (PRX & DRX)
Perhaps you mean to say ZETA fell off. Which is something I'm more open to agreeing with.
NV do not qualify to Iceland. They get 2nd at Berlin. They get grouped at Champs.
ZETA do not qualify to Copenhagen. They get 3rd at Reykajvik. They get grouped at Champs.
But I'm sure you didn't say NV overperformed at Berlin. So why are you saying it for ZETA?
dont bother arguing, he wont listen to what you have to say anyways
Mortadelo [#38]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
bro you are insane lmfaoooo
Mortadelo [#38]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
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.
yaiima0 [#39]dont bother arguing, he wont listen to what you have to say anyways
true. unironically believes zeta was a fluke run lmao
archetype [#41]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.
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
archetype [#42]true. unironically believes zeta was a fluke run lmao
Overperform ≠ Fluke, tried to explain you but you keep trying to give it a negative connotation when it's not what I'm saying at all
Mortadelo [#46]Go ahead, "defend" the people from me
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.
archetype [#34]just baffles me how one can think ZETA overperformed lol. They deserved the 3rd place at Reykjavik and nothing says they've gotten worse since then. There's a possibility, but nothing concrete lol. As far as it stands, ZETA did not overperform and what's more, within the VPL (as this thread was originally about), ZETA are still good because they literally have not lost to PRX, and are 1-1 with DRX. I believe they are 3rd best in the VPL, and there is a low probability of them losing to TALON, especially when even Northeption didn't.
Lmao you keep acting like if saying Zeta got worse since they played 6 months ago is something crazy and for some reason when if you look at this thread absolutely anybody places them over DRX or PRX who are definitely not top 1 and 2 in the world. All I'm saying is they did fucking great on a tournament and had a fucking good day, that does not mean they didn't deserve it
Mortadelo [#43]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
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?
nutab1e [#49]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.
it is what it is
nutab1e [#49]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.
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
Mortadelo [#53]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
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
archetype [#51]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?
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
nutab1e [#54]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
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
Mortadelo [#55]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
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.
Mortadelo [#56]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
Bro thinks everyone wants to debate his nerd ass 💀. Taking the win thx
archetype [#57]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.
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.
Mortadelo [#18]No man, ZETA was not better than FPX, FNC, or TL at all
Personally Zeta is better than TL for sure, FNC is debatable, and FPX is understandable. Yet we wouldn’t know since it never happens so based on results of the past technically Zeta is better then the 2, not FPX tho
Discord