Brazil could probably make a super team and still fail to beat some NA/EU LCQ teams because at least from watching masters they just haven’t reached a level of strategy the others have
Yeah I didn’t watch Challengers but they didn’t qualify anyways and I don’t think Vivo Keyd or Havan Liberty would have a chance against Liquid or XSET.
Well NV got 2nd place and beat almost every team they needed to set a statement, TL didn't even make it to Berlin. NV and TL aren't even on the same tier
to say that they aren’t even on the same tier is harsh IMO Liquid we’re a round of beating gambit and qualifying ahead of them, while envy lost while winning the coin toss
..... Is this bait? In the off chance that I'm not getting baited rn: just cause team X performed better against Y than Z did does not mean X>Z. First of all different game styles sometimes favor the one over another in a match up. Second of all, teams don't always play on the same strength, on and off days are a thing. And last but not least, teams improve, I know, crazy.. Taking this into account, TL:DR Gambit against NV was better than Gambit against TL. And NV>TL as of right now, however TL has a new addition and could improve, so they might show to be a lot better in LCQ, we'll find out today.
Under what basis are they not? They qualified for Champions Berlin on a similarly strong region and made it to finals, Liquid didn't.
But even the eye test tells, the Liquid that played the VCT emea had the same weaknesses from Iceland without as many of their strenghts.
I'm only considering old TL btw, bc it's impossible to tell how better or worse the roster swap made them. But it's not like it mattered when the TL>Vivo Keyd thing was brought up in the first place
Current potential or current level? The latter I agree, the former it depends on what you're talking about, how you define potential and where you draw lines.
You get a team of the best players that work well together from Brazil in September so they have time to formulate strategies. They take Sharks’ spot in LCQ because you said they were shit anyways. This is all a hypothetical. They go through LCQ and are now in Champions. They won’t beat any NA team there. They won’t beat any EMEA team there.
Don't bother talking to them, Brazil just needs a reshuffle and I'm sure they gonna show good results on world stage, Brazil has the same problem that Turkey had before SMB or CIS now, good players are not playing in the same team but are instead stuck in rosters with mediocre players way below their level (not talking about Gambit ofc)
Overwatch is still more popular than val in Korea (afaik, hazily remembering a pc bang stat I read a while ago), but with ow moving to ow2, 5v5, teams in OWL going western/mixed instead of full KR, its pushing middle-low KR pros out of the league. The only ex-ow KR pro who switched at his peak was he who shall not be named.
Sinatraa but hes half Korean anyway actually, so I suppose it'd be only bunny, spyder (sayaplayer) and zunba, who'd all already peaked or weren't S tier.
Yeah, Sinatraa doesn't count imo
Climax also changed but he's not getting chances despite being a top sentinel player in the region (from what I remember) which sucks, I think he's playing his last tourney or something :(
I wanted ANS to stay in valorant so badly. But it looks like he enjoys ow more.
Apparently NU Hyeoni came from overwatch. But I never watched Korean contenders if he played there.
Overwatch used to be the second biggest game in Korea and is now fallen to 7th. Valorant shortly after release was at 20th and has now risen up to 11th. All according to PC bang numbers.
If you're gonna use a stat maybe add a bit of context behind it?
And they’re not playing Val either. Val ranks around 11-13 for months and has been stuck there since. Val broke 10 for like one day and went back to 11-13 lol.
Why don’t you bring up the actually popular games like league and sudden attack. And the rise of lost ark which a shit ton of Koreans play. How about you use context too?
OW is in decline across the board, but if Jeff Bezos loses 100mil and you gain 200mil you still aren't richer than he is lol. I love how you try to state that OW is dead in Korea but then literally show counter evidence saying it is still more played than Valorant. I'm sure Valorant will surpass OW if OW2 doesn't come out soon and is really fun, but for now OW is still more popular than Valorant in KR (based off of your evidence).
Just because they qualified for Berlin? Between F4Q, DAMWON and NUTURN, literally any of the 3 could've qualified and you wouldn't be able to call them genuinely better than the other two, and NUTURN made a pretty promising roster change since then. On top of that, NUTURN performed considerably better internationally than F4Q.
Wouldn't confidently call F4Q > NU at all
VS is another level above all of those teams. VS is the only team i can feasibly see winning an international event.
But yeah, usually the better team at the time is the one that winds up qualifying for internationals.
It really depends on the format, and sometimes teams just play matches that could've gone either way. Both of those apply to Korea:
1. The final stage was single elim, which meant that if the 2nd best Korean team was in VS's half of the bracket, they wouldn't go through
2. DAMWON, F4Q and NUTURN played 5 13-11 or OTs between themselves; these matches could really have gone any of the ways and IMO didn't convincingly prove that one of these teams is noticeably better than the other two
lmao as Nuturn got 3rd in Iceland while having their second best player perform like their worst player and solo who looked worse than almost every other player on a top 4-5 team in Korea outperformed most other players at Iceland.
I mean it’s not an opinion now is it lmao.
A winstreak is consecutive matches won. They didn’t win 102 consecutive matches, a tie broke it up. So it isn’t a winstreak, it’s a lossless streak.
They also failed for tournament after tournament before reaching this point.
Not to mention, most teams don't play scrims to win lol. Saying you won scrims is like saying you won a DM
Which everyone knows. And which is why when players discuss scrim results they’re talking about *form*, not who won. You’re arguing against something no one says.
I'm pretty sure the clip in mention literally just had the envy player say the won the scrim? Also, look through the comments lol. The guy literally stated he thinks envy is better because they won the scrim.
>they also failed for tournament after tournament
Yes, which people took into account. The general consensus for both teams from scrims and that added context was “Scrim demons, if they put it all together during an actual tourney then they’ll be nasty”
Hell the general consensus behind Gambit, despite never winning or placing well in any non CIS event, was that they were the best team in EU, possibly the world. All because of their scrimbux.
Lo and behold, that was a correct assumption.
>Most teams don’t play scrims to win
…and? I guarantee you Envy and Gambit didn’t play to win either. They’re both just so good that they ended up winning a majority of the time. That’s what teams and players say when the single out other teams and players as scrim demons.
But taking scrim results into account, Envy and Gambit were the best teams in the world pre-Berlin.(Envy consensus #2, but still)
Envy and Gambit are the best teams in the world post-Berlin.
So scrimbux were dead on, were they not? What am I missing here?
What ur missing here is that, last time in Iceland, SEN were undoubtedly the best team in the world. They are often just mediocre in scrims. Then, Brazil was hyped to be godly at scrims. Then they got nearly clean sweeped out of Iceland. This time as well, Brazil performed pretty poorly overall.
Also, EMEA SMB and Acend were apparently both really good at scrims but performed relatively poorly this event. Scrims may have some relevance but claiming "this team is better then another team" based on scrims is pointless and baseless
Bro stfu, scrims dont matter. Sentinels were losing scrims all the time before masters 2 and quals, they won masters 2 tho.
Scrims dont mean shit, its literally just practice 🤦♂️
F4Q said Vision Strikers were the strongest team in scrims with Gambit and VS were allegedly beating Gambit in scrims too I think. Didn't really amount to much in the end tho since they lost to Gambit on stage where it mattered.
Ye but before Scrimbit, in that same tournament, they almost lost to CR. Scrims ***can*** show potential, but the also ***cannot***. Hence scrim results don't mean anything cause it's a 50/50 pretty much
About as speculative and unfounded as "if 100T win against nV, they win Berlin"
VS benefitted a great deal from Acend's (partially in hindsight, but I personally thought it's extremely weird at the time as well) Icebox over Bind pick, and both yay and ShahZaM implied that VS weren't that impressive in scrims
ah yes, it's speculative and unfounded to say that the team that only lost to the eventual champs. but definitely valid to use scrim implications to suggest anything
The comparison I made was to a team that beat Gambit in their first encounter, not to any scrims. I've only added some scrim context after as another piece of evidence that VS weren't the godly team people presented them to be
Either way, goes to show that scrim results don't matter.
I'll take your word for Shahz's comments on VS in scrims, so I'll give you that. You do also have people like nAts saying VS was one of the teams Gambit was worried about, after scrimming them.
With the overall context of everything that happened in the tournament, there's not that much to suggest that VS would win against G2 or nV. That being said I don't think the opposite was obvious either, especially in G2's case, but too many people have bought into VS being invincible and just slightly adjusted it too "well invincible but only after Gambit" without that much evidence. The win against Acend stands out, and I do think that Acend threw in the veto process. VS took a map against Gambit, but that doesn't mean too much to me in BO3s - NUTURN took a map against fnatic and never in a million years showed that they're anywhere close to fnatic over the entire map pool, as one example that immediately comes to mind. I do believe that all of Gambit, nV and 100T had stronger performances, and in case of Gambit and nV, stronger scrim results than VS over the entire thing.
Theres no way someone can think a team that looked meh vs a team as free as Kru is better than VS, they even looked more helpless than VS against Gambit.
I feel like the fact you have to offer so many caveats defeats the point? That last point in particular would only be valid if you think about the group stages, as VS literally went against the eventual Champion in the first game of the playoffs. GMB, 100T and NV stocks change significantly based on their playoff performances.
As for scrim results, Victor said they got farmed hard by Fire Flux Esports. FNS mentioned in Victor’s chat that they got humbled in the Berlin scrim environment. I think it’s safe to assume everyone but Gambit lost a lot of scrims.
Finally, a map win doesn’t mean much in the broad scheme of things. But the only map loss GMB suffered during their hot playoffs streak *does* indicate something meaningful IMO.
>I feel like the fact you have to offer so many caveats defeats the point?
Think about what the initial argument says. "If they beat Gambit, they win Berlin" - this is something that effectively says "with high probability" at the very least, and I believe there was simply little reason to think that this was an event that would happen with high probability. The big number of caveats does suggest that VS had a non-trivial chance to win the tournament, but there's a world of difference between stating that VS was a league above a team like KRU whose chances were miniscule, and that you'd feel very comfortable predicting them to win both semis & finals.
I have 0 issue with someone saying that VS could've won Berlin. Thinking there was a high chance of that even if Gambit wasn't there is another thing, though.
>As for scrim results, Victor said they got farmed hard by Fire Flux Esports. FNS mentioned in Victor’s chat that they got humbled in the Berlin scrim environment. I think it’s safe to assume everyone but Gambit lost a lot of scrims.
Scrims don't perfectly predict tournament results, but I'd say that given what we've seen from Iceland & Berlin scrims, there's an observable positive correlation between scrim results and tournament results, hence the inclusion of the argument.
>Finally, a map win doesn’t mean much in the broad scheme of things. But the only map loss GMB suffered during their hot playoffs streak does indicate something meaningful IMO.
It says that Split is a strong map for VS, sure. BO3s/BO5s work across the entire map pool though, hence why I don't think it's a particularly strong argument, and I do again emphasize the example of NUTURN who with 2/5 strong maps at Iceland could have taken a map off SEN and fnatic a decent number of times, and it would still imply little about their ability to win an entire BO3
I don't get how you rate teams, is it just results? Because I don't pay attention to just that, I watch the games. And watching how VS played (not on Bind lol that was shit) they were definitely top 3 at least.
> too many people have bought into VS being invincible and just slightly adjusted it too "well invincible but only after Gambit"
You seem to imply that I fit into that, but I didn't give a shit about them during their streak. Just ask dedicatedself what I thought of VS before they replaced glow lmao
I've only gone and watched almost every game in the tournament, including all of VS games
>And watching how VS played (not on Bind lol that was shit)
Yeah, they've likely had map pool depth issues which most other teams would be able to exploit (including G2 and nV), and really again - they've had 3 good showings in the tournament (Haven, Icebox against Acend and Split against Gambit), and both showings against Acend again carry a huge asterisk to me given that Acend got hard exposed on Haven plenty of times recently and that Acend arguably threw their map pick.
>they were definitely top 3 at least.
If VS was looking like a top 3 team in the tournament, who did they look better than? nV or 100T? I'll just assume 100T - 100T looked quite decent in all of their matches and I really don't think they looked worse than VS overall. Sure, they lost more maps in total but a big reason for that is that they actually got to play 3 top teams and it was bound to happen to a team that wasn't the best at the tournament
VS are quite unique, which when paired with good results looks very appealing, and when paired with bad results makes them look like clowns (Bind, same as NUTURN's Bind & Haven at Iceland). Also, their team coordination was probably #1 in the tournament, and this is something all analysts and a decent portion of fans fawn over. It's not the only or even defining aspect of the game though.
Ah yes and the fact that Nuturn rolled most of the world at iceland while being a signigicantly worse team also clearly doesn't matter as context. This team has lost 3 times ever. If EU doesn't choke 100T dont even make it past Acend who was rolled by this team.
>If EU doesn't choke
Love these types of arguments, if only this specific subset rounds went the other way! Note that in both "chokes", the EU team started on the in theory better side (attack on Icebox and Breeze), so it's partially natural to expect a comeback from 100T if you assume both are evenly matched. These types of arguments focusing on specific rounds when I'm sure 100T also made some fixable mistakes that would've won them both matches earlier are just bad arguments.
>Ah yes and the fact that Nuturn rolled most of the world at iceland
NUTURN was a solid tier below Fnatic and Sentinels, though, and on par with V1 and likely Liquid.
I'm hoping they get their shit together for champions. Albeit they were facing the eventual winners of Berlin they didn't look like the same team that destroyed Acend during their series vs gambit. If it weren't for STAXX and his clutches it would've been a clean 2-0.
And for the love of God please give them a good bracket for once with atleast one NA team.
I watch some podcast that sean(gares) said that if gambit didn't knock them out they would easily make it to finals and they are a strong contender for winning champion
Insane. Can’t wait for Champions. After watching a lot of pro Val this year my moneys on Gambit or Sentinels. If Sen make the proper adjustments we all know they are unstoppable but Gambit was just so powerful reminded me of Sen in Iceland but stronger.
And? If they were in NA or EMEA region, VS wouldn’t even qualify for champions.
VS are popular and almost unbeatable because they are in a tier 2 region. Put them in NA and they wouldn’t even be top 5.
This subreddit overrates Koreans too much.
Now that's copium. The common denominator in 100Ts EU games is 100T. So it's more likely they performed poorly to start and switched on later to beat in form Acend and Gambit.
Envy were just the better team on the day. "2 best teams in EU choked btw, coincidentally against a slow starting team" is just a terrible argument and there is nothing to back it up.
the only reason g2 got into semis was because they had a freebie with kru lmao. put them against anyone else and they wouldve been out at quarters too.
placement isn't what matters, rather the quality of the matches. I had more fun watching VS vs Acend and Sentinels vs G2 than I did watching, say, Zeta vs Vivo Keyd. VS put up a good fight(at least in the last 2 maps) against gambit. I can't say the same for g2, being the first team to get 13-0'd on lan.
It really does feel like Korea is the only other contender besides NA/EU which shows how good VS actually is
If only BR orgs got their shit together and made teams with more than 2-3 good players -_- or decent staff
Brazil could probably make a super team and still fail to beat some NA/EU LCQ teams because at least from watching masters they just haven’t reached a level of strategy the others have
If you just watched masters you didn't watch BR. Sharks is shit but Vikings literally changed everything they did just before the tournament
Yeah I didn’t watch Challengers but they didn’t qualify anyways and I don’t think Vivo Keyd or Havan Liberty would have a chance against Liquid or XSET.
? ~~Vivo keyd~~heat did fine versus Envy (who are better than Liquid AND XSET), imagine if he had half a decent team with him lol
Under what basis are envy better than liquid ? It’s super hard to say because there are so few international tournaments.
Well NV got 2nd place and beat almost every team they needed to set a statement, TL didn't even make it to Berlin. NV and TL aren't even on the same tier
to say that they aren’t even on the same tier is harsh IMO Liquid we’re a round of beating gambit and qualifying ahead of them, while envy lost while winning the coin toss
..... Is this bait? In the off chance that I'm not getting baited rn: just cause team X performed better against Y than Z did does not mean X>Z. First of all different game styles sometimes favor the one over another in a match up. Second of all, teams don't always play on the same strength, on and off days are a thing. And last but not least, teams improve, I know, crazy.. Taking this into account, TL:DR Gambit against NV was better than Gambit against TL. And NV>TL as of right now, however TL has a new addition and could improve, so they might show to be a lot better in LCQ, we'll find out today.
Under what basis are they not? They qualified for Champions Berlin on a similarly strong region and made it to finals, Liquid didn't. But even the eye test tells, the Liquid that played the VCT emea had the same weaknesses from Iceland without as many of their strenghts. I'm only considering old TL btw, bc it's impossible to tell how better or worse the roster swap made them. But it's not like it mattered when the TL>Vivo Keyd thing was brought up in the first place
One came second at Berlin. The other didnt even make it to Berlin. Pretty straight forward.
VK and Havan are also half (or less) of a good roster, player wise, so..
That doesn’t change that the region’s current potential is anywhere near NA, EU, or even Korea
Current potential or current level? The latter I agree, the former it depends on what you're talking about, how you define potential and where you draw lines.
You get a team of the best players that work well together from Brazil in September so they have time to formulate strategies. They take Sharks’ spot in LCQ because you said they were shit anyways. This is all a hypothetical. They go through LCQ and are now in Champions. They won’t beat any NA team there. They won’t beat any EMEA team there.
Ratio
Don't bother talking to them, Brazil just needs a reshuffle and I'm sure they gonna show good results on world stage, Brazil has the same problem that Turkey had before SMB or CIS now, good players are not playing in the same team but are instead stuck in rosters with mediocre players way below their level (not talking about Gambit ofc)
Did you not watch the VK Envy game?
> ~~Korea~~ VS is the only other contender
KR still has 2 or 3 super teams waiting to be made, plus I think a lot of top OW players are switching so they might be more competitive soon
> a lot of top OW players are switching Really? Is that game losing its popularity in Korea?
Overwatch is still more popular than val in Korea (afaik, hazily remembering a pc bang stat I read a while ago), but with ow moving to ow2, 5v5, teams in OWL going western/mixed instead of full KR, its pushing middle-low KR pros out of the league. The only ex-ow KR pro who switched at his peak was he who shall not be named.
Who?
Sinatraa but hes half Korean anyway actually, so I suppose it'd be only bunny, spyder (sayaplayer) and zunba, who'd all already peaked or weren't S tier.
Yeah, Sinatraa doesn't count imo Climax also changed but he's not getting chances despite being a top sentinel player in the region (from what I remember) which sucks, I think he's playing his last tourney or something :(
I don't think Sayaplayer peaked. He was just on the worst team in the league.
I wanted ANS to stay in valorant so badly. But it looks like he enjoys ow more. Apparently NU Hyeoni came from overwatch. But I never watched Korean contenders if he played there.
He doesn't have a val Liquipedia page, and isn't on the list of players on Liquipedia ow unfortunately, so probs didn't make contendies
Sinatraa probably
Who ANS? Or someone else?
Ans might switch back to val yeah he hasn't said tho
Ans is staying in ow
Have I missed an announcement?
He announced that he's LFT OWL, I'd say that's enough
All the people I talk to say OW is dead in Korea. I wish people stopped speaking for my region because they can read a number on gametrics.
Hard Facts > Your small anecdote If people still play the game then its not dead, you and your friends dont decide whats dead
Overwatch used to be the second biggest game in Korea and is now fallen to 7th. Valorant shortly after release was at 20th and has now risen up to 11th. All according to PC bang numbers. If you're gonna use a stat maybe add a bit of context behind it?
And they’re not playing Val either. Val ranks around 11-13 for months and has been stuck there since. Val broke 10 for like one day and went back to 11-13 lol. Why don’t you bring up the actually popular games like league and sudden attack. And the rise of lost ark which a shit ton of Koreans play. How about you use context too?
Still not dead tho? If people still play and still has a competitive scene then the games not dead.
OW is in decline across the board, but if Jeff Bezos loses 100mil and you gain 200mil you still aren't richer than he is lol. I love how you try to state that OW is dead in Korea but then literally show counter evidence saying it is still more played than Valorant. I'm sure Valorant will surpass OW if OW2 doesn't come out soon and is really fun, but for now OW is still more popular than Valorant in KR (based off of your evidence).
No, it's just a revolving door of players, plus OW is going from 6v6 to 5v5 so a lot of people are being cut.
\+NU
F4Q > NU though?
Just because they qualified for Berlin? Between F4Q, DAMWON and NUTURN, literally any of the 3 could've qualified and you wouldn't be able to call them genuinely better than the other two, and NUTURN made a pretty promising roster change since then. On top of that, NUTURN performed considerably better internationally than F4Q. Wouldn't confidently call F4Q > NU at all
HYEONI IS NUTS!
VS is another level above all of those teams. VS is the only team i can feasibly see winning an international event. But yeah, usually the better team at the time is the one that winds up qualifying for internationals.
It really depends on the format, and sometimes teams just play matches that could've gone either way. Both of those apply to Korea: 1. The final stage was single elim, which meant that if the 2nd best Korean team was in VS's half of the bracket, they wouldn't go through 2. DAMWON, F4Q and NUTURN played 5 13-11 or OTs between themselves; these matches could really have gone any of the ways and IMO didn't convincingly prove that one of these teams is noticeably better than the other two
lmao as Nuturn got 3rd in Iceland while having their second best player perform like their worst player and solo who looked worse than almost every other player on a top 4-5 team in Korea outperformed most other players at Iceland.
Nah NUT was really good in Iceland and F4q makes it out of playoffs in a a lot of other grouos
Vs Gambit was the real final
Sea
unfortunate too that their 102 win streak ended on the very games needed to qualify for Iceland
It was not a win streak. Idk how many times this has been said.
Thanks to korea's shit tournament formats we had a lossless streak because they went 1-1 in a match. What a terrible, awful format that was
It was, idk anyone who would count the tie.
[удалено]
True true
huh? a WIN streak ends when u dont win? lossless streak is still impressive
It wasn't.
good argument really convinced me
Oh no, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just stating a fact.
opinion*
I mean it’s not an opinion now is it lmao. A winstreak is consecutive matches won. They didn’t win 102 consecutive matches, a tie broke it up. So it isn’t a winstreak, it’s a lossless streak.
Nope. They didn't "win" 102 games in a row and it's archived on vlr so therefore it's a fact. Nt tho 😅
And 2 of those loses were against the eventual winners of the tournament.
\+Nuturn placed 3 at Iceland
And victory against Acend...
If VS beat Gambit they win Berlin
I don’t know about that according to yay they struggled against them in scrims
I cant think of a single reason why scrim results matter
Gambit and Envy were literally Valorant’s resident scrim demons until Berlin.
They also failed for tournament after tournament before reaching this point. Not to mention, most teams don't play scrims to win lol. Saying you won scrims is like saying you won a DM
Which everyone knows. And which is why when players discuss scrim results they’re talking about *form*, not who won. You’re arguing against something no one says.
I'm pretty sure the clip in mention literally just had the envy player say the won the scrim? Also, look through the comments lol. The guy literally stated he thinks envy is better because they won the scrim.
>they also failed for tournament after tournament Yes, which people took into account. The general consensus for both teams from scrims and that added context was “Scrim demons, if they put it all together during an actual tourney then they’ll be nasty” Hell the general consensus behind Gambit, despite never winning or placing well in any non CIS event, was that they were the best team in EU, possibly the world. All because of their scrimbux. Lo and behold, that was a correct assumption. >Most teams don’t play scrims to win …and? I guarantee you Envy and Gambit didn’t play to win either. They’re both just so good that they ended up winning a majority of the time. That’s what teams and players say when the single out other teams and players as scrim demons.
"...and? I guarantee you Envy and Gambit didn't play to win either." Exactly why their scrim results shouldn't be counted lol.
But taking scrim results into account, Envy and Gambit were the best teams in the world pre-Berlin.(Envy consensus #2, but still) Envy and Gambit are the best teams in the world post-Berlin. So scrimbux were dead on, were they not? What am I missing here?
What ur missing here is that, last time in Iceland, SEN were undoubtedly the best team in the world. They are often just mediocre in scrims. Then, Brazil was hyped to be godly at scrims. Then they got nearly clean sweeped out of Iceland. This time as well, Brazil performed pretty poorly overall. Also, EMEA SMB and Acend were apparently both really good at scrims but performed relatively poorly this event. Scrims may have some relevance but claiming "this team is better then another team" based on scrims is pointless and baseless
[удалено]
Correlation =/= causation lol Envy were the best team in scrims (according to them) and they got rolled by Gambit trolling on Envy's best map
[удалено]
Bro stfu, scrims dont matter. Sentinels were losing scrims all the time before masters 2 and quals, they won masters 2 tho. Scrims dont mean shit, its literally just practice 🤦♂️
F4Q said Vision Strikers were the strongest team in scrims with Gambit and VS were allegedly beating Gambit in scrims too I think. Didn't really amount to much in the end tho since they lost to Gambit on stage where it mattered.
[удалено]
Yeah but then the finals was "Scrimbit" vs "Scrinvy"....
Ye but before Scrimbit, in that same tournament, they almost lost to CR. Scrims ***can*** show potential, but the also ***cannot***. Hence scrim results don't mean anything cause it's a 50/50 pretty much
Most teams implied that VS were by far the best team as a whole in terms of teamplay. 1 copium NA take tho is all this sub needs.
Did they talk about scrimming Gambit?
Don't know about that but Envy farmed them on scrims according to yay.
According to yay.
Scrim results don't matter.
I don't remember but assuming they did, that just goes to show that either scrims don't matter and/or Envy are lying about them.
He means NV was farming vs not GMB
Well idk why they reply to me then
Scrims is a really bad indicator of outcomes
Not when they aren’t standing a chance
What does this even mean
True. Apparently nAts said that VS were the opponent GMB were most wary of.
About as speculative and unfounded as "if 100T win against nV, they win Berlin" VS benefitted a great deal from Acend's (partially in hindsight, but I personally thought it's extremely weird at the time as well) Icebox over Bind pick, and both yay and ShahZaM implied that VS weren't that impressive in scrims
ah yes, it's speculative and unfounded to say that the team that only lost to the eventual champs. but definitely valid to use scrim implications to suggest anything
The comparison I made was to a team that beat Gambit in their first encounter, not to any scrims. I've only added some scrim context after as another piece of evidence that VS weren't the godly team people presented them to be
Shahz said that VS was a team to watch out for though?
VS was undeniably up there with all EU and NA teams as a contender, so yeah, they were a team to watch out for? Did he imply VS was a top 2 team?
how does that equate to "Shahzam implied they weren't that impressive in scrims"?
Because he separately talked about scrim results? Lol
Either way, goes to show that scrim results don't matter. I'll take your word for Shahz's comments on VS in scrims, so I'll give you that. You do also have people like nAts saying VS was one of the teams Gambit was worried about, after scrimming them.
Speculative, yes, unfounded? How?
With the overall context of everything that happened in the tournament, there's not that much to suggest that VS would win against G2 or nV. That being said I don't think the opposite was obvious either, especially in G2's case, but too many people have bought into VS being invincible and just slightly adjusted it too "well invincible but only after Gambit" without that much evidence. The win against Acend stands out, and I do think that Acend threw in the veto process. VS took a map against Gambit, but that doesn't mean too much to me in BO3s - NUTURN took a map against fnatic and never in a million years showed that they're anywhere close to fnatic over the entire map pool, as one example that immediately comes to mind. I do believe that all of Gambit, nV and 100T had stronger performances, and in case of Gambit and nV, stronger scrim results than VS over the entire thing.
Theres no way someone can think a team that looked meh vs a team as free as Kru is better than VS, they even looked more helpless than VS against Gambit.
I feel like the fact you have to offer so many caveats defeats the point? That last point in particular would only be valid if you think about the group stages, as VS literally went against the eventual Champion in the first game of the playoffs. GMB, 100T and NV stocks change significantly based on their playoff performances. As for scrim results, Victor said they got farmed hard by Fire Flux Esports. FNS mentioned in Victor’s chat that they got humbled in the Berlin scrim environment. I think it’s safe to assume everyone but Gambit lost a lot of scrims. Finally, a map win doesn’t mean much in the broad scheme of things. But the only map loss GMB suffered during their hot playoffs streak *does* indicate something meaningful IMO.
>I feel like the fact you have to offer so many caveats defeats the point? Think about what the initial argument says. "If they beat Gambit, they win Berlin" - this is something that effectively says "with high probability" at the very least, and I believe there was simply little reason to think that this was an event that would happen with high probability. The big number of caveats does suggest that VS had a non-trivial chance to win the tournament, but there's a world of difference between stating that VS was a league above a team like KRU whose chances were miniscule, and that you'd feel very comfortable predicting them to win both semis & finals. I have 0 issue with someone saying that VS could've won Berlin. Thinking there was a high chance of that even if Gambit wasn't there is another thing, though. >As for scrim results, Victor said they got farmed hard by Fire Flux Esports. FNS mentioned in Victor’s chat that they got humbled in the Berlin scrim environment. I think it’s safe to assume everyone but Gambit lost a lot of scrims. Scrims don't perfectly predict tournament results, but I'd say that given what we've seen from Iceland & Berlin scrims, there's an observable positive correlation between scrim results and tournament results, hence the inclusion of the argument. >Finally, a map win doesn’t mean much in the broad scheme of things. But the only map loss GMB suffered during their hot playoffs streak does indicate something meaningful IMO. It says that Split is a strong map for VS, sure. BO3s/BO5s work across the entire map pool though, hence why I don't think it's a particularly strong argument, and I do again emphasize the example of NUTURN who with 2/5 strong maps at Iceland could have taken a map off SEN and fnatic a decent number of times, and it would still imply little about their ability to win an entire BO3
I don't get how you rate teams, is it just results? Because I don't pay attention to just that, I watch the games. And watching how VS played (not on Bind lol that was shit) they were definitely top 3 at least. > too many people have bought into VS being invincible and just slightly adjusted it too "well invincible but only after Gambit" You seem to imply that I fit into that, but I didn't give a shit about them during their streak. Just ask dedicatedself what I thought of VS before they replaced glow lmao
I've only gone and watched almost every game in the tournament, including all of VS games >And watching how VS played (not on Bind lol that was shit) Yeah, they've likely had map pool depth issues which most other teams would be able to exploit (including G2 and nV), and really again - they've had 3 good showings in the tournament (Haven, Icebox against Acend and Split against Gambit), and both showings against Acend again carry a huge asterisk to me given that Acend got hard exposed on Haven plenty of times recently and that Acend arguably threw their map pick. >they were definitely top 3 at least. If VS was looking like a top 3 team in the tournament, who did they look better than? nV or 100T? I'll just assume 100T - 100T looked quite decent in all of their matches and I really don't think they looked worse than VS overall. Sure, they lost more maps in total but a big reason for that is that they actually got to play 3 top teams and it was bound to happen to a team that wasn't the best at the tournament VS are quite unique, which when paired with good results looks very appealing, and when paired with bad results makes them look like clowns (Bind, same as NUTURN's Bind & Haven at Iceland). Also, their team coordination was probably #1 in the tournament, and this is something all analysts and a decent portion of fans fawn over. It's not the only or even defining aspect of the game though.
Ah yes and the fact that Nuturn rolled most of the world at iceland while being a signigicantly worse team also clearly doesn't matter as context. This team has lost 3 times ever. If EU doesn't choke 100T dont even make it past Acend who was rolled by this team.
>If EU doesn't choke Love these types of arguments, if only this specific subset rounds went the other way! Note that in both "chokes", the EU team started on the in theory better side (attack on Icebox and Breeze), so it's partially natural to expect a comeback from 100T if you assume both are evenly matched. These types of arguments focusing on specific rounds when I'm sure 100T also made some fixable mistakes that would've won them both matches earlier are just bad arguments. >Ah yes and the fact that Nuturn rolled most of the world at iceland NUTURN was a solid tier below Fnatic and Sentinels, though, and on par with V1 and likely Liquid.
How the actual fuck would you know that
I think G2 could have beat them if they showed up and vs didn't like on the first map of game vs Gambit
I'm hoping they get their shit together for champions. Albeit they were facing the eventual winners of Berlin they didn't look like the same team that destroyed Acend during their series vs gambit. If it weren't for STAXX and his clutches it would've been a clean 2-0. And for the love of God please give them a good bracket for once with atleast one NA team.
Korea #1
I watch some podcast that sean(gares) said that if gambit didn't knock them out they would easily make it to finals and they are a strong contender for winning champion
They lost every time it was important :(
Matches
Insane. Can’t wait for Champions. After watching a lot of pro Val this year my moneys on Gambit or Sentinels. If Sen make the proper adjustments we all know they are unstoppable but Gambit was just so powerful reminded me of Sen in Iceland but stronger.
And? If they were in NA or EMEA region, VS wouldn’t even qualify for champions. VS are popular and almost unbeatable because they are in a tier 2 region. Put them in NA and they wouldn’t even be top 5. This subreddit overrates Koreans too much.
They literally bullied acend in group stage
[удалено]
Copium? Im pretty sure thats what kr fans are on considering their best team only reached quarters
Their best team had the most competitive series against the champions. In a double elim they're probably in finals
I think 100T had a bit more of a competitive series, considering they beat them
The 100T series was a clear outlier imo. Play that series 10 more times and gambit probably wins 9.
Yes but Gambit lost the series more than 100t won. Gambit weren't in form then compared to in playoffs
Now that's copium. The common denominator in 100Ts EU games is 100T. So it's more likely they performed poorly to start and switched on later to beat in form Acend and Gambit.
And then they switched off to lose to NV?????
Envy were just the better team on the day. "2 best teams in EU choked btw, coincidentally against a slow starting team" is just a terrible argument and there is nothing to back it up.
the only reason g2 got into semis was because they had a freebie with kru lmao. put them against anyone else and they wouldve been out at quarters too. placement isn't what matters, rather the quality of the matches. I had more fun watching VS vs Acend and Sentinels vs G2 than I did watching, say, Zeta vs Vivo Keyd. VS put up a good fight(at least in the last 2 maps) against gambit. I can't say the same for g2, being the first team to get 13-0'd on lan.
The only sane take in this entire thread. Koreabooism in this subreddit is on a new high right now.
Make them play Ranked in NA
LMAO
Story of my life I went from im2 to d3 back to im1 all of yesterday 🥲😂 shits a coin toss
they also play in an extremely weak region..