“bangkok mickey mouse”
why? cuz top teams from that event didn’t make it to toronto?
but maybe toronto is the real mickey mouse because none of the good teams made it?
#foodforthought #vlrthoughts #flawlesslogic
3
mickey mouse criteria
posted in
General Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
Bangkok = Nobody knew how to play the best comps in meta.
Proof: T1's Lotus Meteor played Iso and they won matches, but now switched to Tejo. Why? Because Other Teams learned how to play the map better with the current meta. T1 got destroyed by PRX and got knocked out.
Toronto = Better teams who improved for the meta, so its not mickey. T1 was a fluke, G2 was better, but G2 also losing aura and other teams are getting better and more ready for Toronto than they were in Kickoffs. Proof: SEN, TH, TL, China, etc.
1st Masters will always be Mickey and not mean a damn thing. Just always a test run for new agents/meta so trophy means absolutely nothing.
2ND Masters and Champions is only worth value in VCT.
again by that logic, t1 played good while the other teams sucked.
its not like t1 beat like one good team to win bangkok, they beat all the top 1 teams from every region.
so no i wouldnt call bangkok a mickey mouse but if were gonna look at a teams overall performance throughout the year it will matter less compared to toronto or paris.
for example, if PRX win toronto and go to champs playoffs and t1 go to champs playoffs and they both finish 7-8th then PRX would have had the better year since they won toronto which has slightly more value instead of bangkok. thats it. so no even if g2 makes it to all 3 grandfinals they will only at most equal t1 since t1 won a international and g2 didnt.
which is why last year was GenG(1 final and 1 win) > EDG(1 win,champs) > SEN ( 1 win,masters madrid) > TH(2 finals, shanghai and seoul).
g2 is more consistent that t1 but unfortunately that doesnt matter unless you win a tournament and dont choke a bo5 or a grand finals. we cant js look at a team when theyre playing under less pressure and discount they're performance when they're playing with more pressure.
t1 js performed better with that higher pressure
this is the exact same situation that we had with TH last year where the team is fundamentally really good(TH was fundamentally better thna very team that year other than prime GenG who performed for 2 events) but js cant perform and win under massive pressure(till now)
pressure is another story. it still doesn't excuse them for these "Top Teams" during Kickoffs/Bangkok to be knocked out and not make it to Toronto. If they were good at Bangkok, they should still be good now. But fact is, they weren't that great, besides G2. And fact is, other teams got way better. The real skill and development is showing more now, compared to kickoffs/bangkok.
sure but that dosent discount a win, teams still had the off season to bring their teams up to shape.
there is no excuse for a team to be knocked out of qualifying.
you also seem to be bringing up G2 who themselves barely qualified after beating EG(who choked multiple rounds on pearl and should have won) so they themselves got really lucky and qualified. every team who performed in bangkok has played poorly since and this is simply cause they got read cause they were that good. same thing that happened with GenG at champs and FNC at champs(GenG were worse off but both teams got hard read and their strats stolen and both were heavily burnt out after performing for so long)
G2 seems more fundamentally stable than t1 but again performing under pressure and actually winning is what counts. there is very little reward for second place in the mind of the people.
G2 is 1/4 of the teams that are making it to Toronto. EDG T1 didnt make it and VIT will not as well. 1/4, thats proof and evidence that Bangkok is Mickey Mouse.
If you measure the "real skill + experience" for Off-Season vs. Kickoffs/Bangkok + Stage 1, which holds more value?
Exactly. Offseason experience dont mean shit. Fact is EDG T1 VIT are losing to "Improved Teams" with higher skill and better meta development.
mate i dont think your in the right mindset to argue right now.
G2 barely made it through sheer luck(EG threw damn hard on pearl, js go watch that map back) and is in a worse region compared to T1. the avg APAC team will smoke an avg AMER team.
but again that is besides the point.
it dosent matter that theyre not performing right now but that they performed then. they beat the clear favorites in G2 and played better under high pressure.
yes you could say the teams are better right now but i will take another example : The teams right now are much better than during tokyo 2023 or LA 2023. does that mean those tournaments were micky mouse? no.
You perform at the time your needed to, not for the future. GenG 2024 would get smoked by G2 2025 but does that discount GenGs achivements? no.
You play for that time not for the future and at that time they were the best team. thats it.
G2 themselves suck bro, js stop.
IF G2 was winning and dominating with ease then your points would hold more weight but theyre getting pushed around but SEN and MIBR and quite literally should have lost to EG......
therye only saving grace right now is that theyre playing in the 2nd worst region in the world rn
exactly my point. this game changes wayyy too much(whether that is good or bad is debatable) and teams js cant click into form like they can in counter strike.
i think the issue at hand is that people still compare valorant to counter strike which has a relatively stable meta and unchanging maps(damn good maps but still) and expect the same level of dominance that CS teams show throughout the year. comparing it to league is also wrong since this is a tac shooter. its a weird game that sits in between.
agreed. and that idea can be argued every year and i think most will agree seen as teams who have kept the same core players/coach on average do better than teams that dont and also teams that dont innovate or have good marco might still win when relying on hero plays from experienced players (NRG, VIT) then fall off after once teams see the top teams play. theres so many factor that go into it its just never a simple thing. T1 won without using the meta whilst G2 had a massive advantage going into the GF and whilst being pretty on point to the meta, if they were better they wouldve won.
The only worth it has is which team was just better around that period where teams have no full knowledge of the new agents or meta. After some time, all teams know better so thats when the real skill shows and is developed. What good is T1 winning Bangkok if they can't even make it to Toronto? More teams are skilled and developed now, it proves that T1 isn't all that great.
Discord