bump.
| Flag: | Czech Republic |
| Registered: | December 29, 2021 |
| Last post: | August 28, 2025 at 11:16 AM |
| Posts: | 8615 |
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.
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?
i been up good in the new act
true. unironically believes zeta was a fluke run lmao
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://tracker.gg/valorant/match/1d2f187d-5ce8-420e-b6b1-d848ae7f7156?handle=d3eRy1u%23missu
lmfao guy plays 1 game in actual high elo lobbies and goes 6/19 LOL
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.
eh. their scrim results at champs proved they were not overperforming during m1.
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.
vs fan -> drx fan
honourable mention to prx fan since m3 berlin because of f0rsakeN
no way Talon is better than DRX/PRX/ZETA
T1 shit on everyone in scrims during 2019 and look what happened. FPX also shit on everyone in scrims in 2021..
realistically i have JDG vs GENG with JDG winning.
ZEKA legit has pulled better performances than Chovy this tournament tbh
would be sleeper if its a repeat of a previous Worlds, not after how exciting it's been so far.
honestly realistically i expect GENG to stomp DRX but the story sould be so good if DRX win Worlds
as for JDG being the most boring, I only mean that in their story/narrative. They are insane as a team.
JDG vs T1
GENG vs DRX
Which team are you supporting? Personally these are 4 out of my 5 favourite teams. The narratives would also be crazy save for JDG.
T1: Faker gets his 4th Worlds ever, along with leading a group of rookies. Runs through the hardest bracket, facing the Defending World Champions in Groups, the MSI winners in Quarters, LPL's 1st seed in Semis, and potentially the LCK 1st seed in GF.
GENG: Chovy and Peanut finally get a title. Peanut came so close with ROX and SKT, but faltered. Chovy was the star midlaner of the LCK but never reached past Quarters at Worlds. Not to mention Ruler would be getting his 2nd Worlds title.
DRX: Deft would finally get the one trophy that evaded him and can retire in peace. He already faced 3/4 LPL teams and won, not to mention DRX are the underdogs, entering Worlds through Play-Ins and not only are the first ever 4th seed to appear in Semis, but the 2nd ever team to reverse sweep.
DRX faced RNG in Play-Ins, beat TES in Groups, and beat EDG in Quarters.
JDG: Yagao would finally cement himself as the best midlaner in the Knight/Yagao rivalry, where they originated not only from the same town but also played in the same PC cafe. Knight was always considered the better player, but Yagao winning would prove his doubters wrong. 369 had a slump the past year or so, and is looking like the best Toplaner this tournament alongside Zeus. Kanavi was stuck in contract jail during his Griffin days, but can finally leave his mark on Worlds history.
i personally like DRX because they are such huge underdogs but any team is fine for me, JDG is the most boring tho imo.
HAHA, i'm just kidding
i wouldn't mind being part of administrative staff
considering pati is committed to playing even if his injury gets worse, probably for him.
they're not bad if you do stuff after the movie.
like getting dinner or going to the arcade or whatever.
source: me.
jinggg and f0rsaken > pati
pati also has injury dont forget
completely based and reliable list
PRX has never beaten DRX nor ZETA. They got 2nd by destroying EMEA, which is impressive.
I would assume that at least within the VPL DRX has the upper hand.
https://www.vlr.gg/110530/xset-vs-optc-casters
it's just stuff like that. I mean it's not a problem to build a narrative but I think my point is to not build narratives that take away from a player's skill. These are pro players and while they do make mistakes I don't think the narrative should be to point out a potential throw.
If FNS is hesitating, then why? There's no reason.
If FNS is not shooting because he wants to close the gap, there's a reason. There's a legitimate reason.
I guess that's the difference.
If someone clearly whiffs that's fair, it's a shocker and part of the entertainment. But usually one can tell when one is whiffing/making a bad play and one is trying to make something happen.
idk how you cast but i personally like it when games are casted with some banter between the casters, like PanPoc.
I also think it's really important to be able to convey information very quickly and concisely - something the experienced casters in CSGO can do. I guess that comes with experience though, but it's difficult to enjoy the game if the casters are flubbing words because they're not used to the change in game tempo.
I also really don't like it when casters seem to kind of act on authority with some play when it's obviously not. I think it was Balla who did this a few times and it really turned me off as a viewer. Obviously, it's hard to build interesting narratives if you don't do that, so I guess some level of discretion should be there, it's just..idunno.
i think you're the on taking it personally considering part of your only reasoning for s1mple being the best player is that he played well when there were no Majors lol..sounds like bias to me.
like i said, you can like s1mple, but you can't justify him being the best player and talk about "skill", then bring up his life story instead of his gameplay.
It's possible. Some JP pros play with insane packet loss and still do well. But like, you have to be structured alternatively to do that because I can barely play with packet loss fluctuating between 1 and 0%.
some of the best kr pros didnt...like exy and ssun and wenty...:(
Discord