First, none of this truly matters. If you're reading this post please consider donating to the victims of the Los Angeles fires:
https://secure.lafoodbank.org/site/Donation2?df_id=1800&mfc_pref=T&1800.donation=form1
Second, someone cool helped me out with my submission and I want to give him a shoutout, Nabil Elouahabi, basically gave me a bunch of dialogue that I created a fun video for my submission. He has a Cameo page and you should check it out ( https://www.cameo.com/valorant1973 )
Third, I think a couple of important people jumped to conclusions about my work. I don’t think you can fit my system into the traditional way of doing things. While I appreciate their critiques, their time spent was a bit misguided.
I would also like to take the time to again point out the current state of the landscape. We see what the current work leads to. My comments about the size of the analysis that is handed over to players should alarm you as a viewer. You cannot truly believe that handing a one page response to a player is anything close to professional. If you disagree with me, I would point you to HBO specials like Hard Knock: https://www.hbo.com/hard-knocks . Just look at the binders they carry around. That sort of preparation is what leads to amazing sports moments. Talent needs knowledge to thrive. Many people do not have this knowledge required so they make it about other things.
Thank you to the people who took the time to read my work. Good or bad, if you actually took the time to read it, I appreciate you.
The context that is missing from the critiques is that my work leads to discussions. The number one rule in any sort of strategy effort is that your perfect plan is going to fail. The sizing of this is supposed to acknowledge that. There needs to be a foundation from which knowledge can grow.
A one page analysis of your analysts thoughts and conclusions is not going to get you there. You don’t know any of the inputs such as their skill and knowledge of the subject, how they are feeling, what experience they have in composing documents that require them to be non-bias or even if they had a bad breakfast.
I spent some time on individual players. But I think many of my critics think it is just the 100T and FNC players. Nope, it was 19 different teams.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SJK_Brlfyf0urXM0rbqdXmpk6qgad_9Z?usp=drive_link
I didn’t feel like I could adequately give an analysis report without doing the film. So in addition to my work and research into the players, I needed to see the games that the past teams played to see if there were any adjustments in the way they played. An analysis would be pointless if it was an entirely different roster/comp/coach.
So what I did was cut every single game into rounds. From each of those rounds I created a mini-map focused video. This way I could see at a high level what is usually missed in analysis work if you were purely using VCT footage.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1U02rpKLO580ozSZ04tqUrgYrfYfHlsE2?usp=drive_link
Once again, the goal of my work is not the output. It’s the path I journey to get to a place of expertise that can then be utilized by the organization.
I'm not going to attack anyone individually but I would just like to point out that my work is a direct attack on theirs. To see what someone is capable of and then to have to look at your work product can produce jealousy. As people in positions of privilege they should look at my work and applaud it. I tried and produced something of value. It's just weird that you would take 10 minutes of skimming it to try and destroy it. That's some shameful stuff. Do better.
Discord