I think a lot of people are reflecting more on EG’s horrible veto rather than 100T’s win. For some reason EG gave them the only two maps they really play, so 100T fans might also be questioning how much confidence this win should realistically provide with regards to the rest of the tournament.

Aspas, leaf, and zekken are the Americas 2K+. I know the numbers on zekken are being disputed though, as he may have gotten to 2K quicker than last match (what was announced officially)-- can't remember where I saw it posted but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

Because again, the audience in the Colosseum was filled with citizens who were not participants of the trials themselves. If the audience was filled exclusively with those who are also in line to versus a lion in a sandpit, they likely would not be cheering gleefully as the comrade before them gets mauled. Spectator versus participant.

In a way you proved my point in your response, so you’ll get there.

I'd actually disagree a bit-- my point was that spectators like laughing at performers, not that humans like laughing at humans. A gladiator probably did not enjoy watching another gladiator fail in the Colosseum in ancient Rome as much as the rest of the audience would, so to speak.

The argument was that it's actually not inherently human to do this, and requires a level of detachment and lack of empathy that is mostly achieved because the spectator could never and will never be in the same situation as the one they are spectating, hence the concept of spectator vs performer.

I actually invite you to keep your brain on, popcorn or not.

The employed parasocial fans are also the ones who typically buy merchandise, show up in-person to matches, generate hype and interest around the sport, and drive consistent stream numbers for sponsors-- something that is also very prevalent in mainstream sports.

If fans wanted their esport to succeed, valorant or otherwise, blaming and ostracizing those particular fans because you think you're better than them doesn't make much sense imo. One group hates for fun and one enjoys for fun, each side with those who take it too far, but one seems to benefit the esport more than the other.

Average age/maturity of user + the general culture of being a member of the audience, so to say. Very easy to be overly critical or even hateful/inappropriate regarding others’ performances when you’re quite secure with your role as the spectator, and feel very far removed from the idea of that player being an actual human and not just a character for your own entertainment.

Asuna. Not denying penny is talented and occasionally puts up incredible stats, but imo you have to keep in mind the “strength of schedule” as they say in traditional sports.

YFP and penny just barely made split 2 playoffs, and his pop off maps have been against the likes of Landor and NightBlood Gaming. Asuna certainly has his weaknesses and flaws performance-wise, but even at his worst he is a more flexible player, and playing against opponents like MIBR with aspas and Sentinels with Zekken. I do feel the factual comparison makes it a bit obvious, but I could be overestimating the resonance here.

imo, a lot of fans tend to massively underestimate and in some ways totally disregard strength of schedule when it comes to understanding the talent in tier 2 compared to tier 1.

I agree with the ultimate sentiment that sym has always been, even at his best, extremely inconsistent. If anything, as someone who has watched him for multiple years, I’d actually say he’s been playing better this year after the disastrous stint on EG.

I have a hunch that his problem, like a lot of t2 talent, is that he requires a distinct level of coaching and accountability from teammates to improve on specifically his consistency. He’s been around a lot of the same players for a while now, and no dig to them individually as players or performers, but sometimes that kind of continuity can stunt players if they’re not overly self-aware and constantly receiving AND seeking feedback in good faith.

TLDR: sym’s weaknesses can be broken down more as inconsistence than straight up awful game knowledge/overheating/mechanical skill imo, and breaking that cycle to work towards becoming a reliable duelist will require intentional change from him and those around him.

Agree with a bit of the sentiment of this, imo coaching will be what makes or breaks NRG, especially bringing in new players (even if I do in fact think those players are cracked, like skuba).

I’m sorry— is anyone suggesting SEN got unlucky? I’m truly lost how any reasonable valorant fan can believe that after coming from upper bracket, with a double map advantage, after seeing your opponent play every map in their own best of five the day prior, and most importantly— it was a best of five maps. Perhaps I just watched a completely different series, lol.

I understand there’s a fair amount of SEN glazing in Americas, but bringing up SEN being “unlucky” after this tournament is approaching complete delusion and ignorance regarding the esport, imo.

Not completely sure what Bo5 you were watching, but losing 1-3 with reasonable round margins is not unlucky, nor close.

I think it's more perma-post-plant that people have an issue with. It seems like a lot of viewers are newer to VCT, otherwise you'd remember a similar sentiment when Astra released, and a team was simply trolling by not playing Astra double controller/post-plant.

I also think it's all a bit silly when every team has the same access to the same characters for the duration of the meta, yet fans seem to think a character or meta provides an unfair experience. Boring, sure, but I think favored or unfair is difficult to reason if your job is to play the game.

the player you're saying should be replaced is still the leader in APR for Americas for the entire event. lol.

I'm convinced some people don't actually watch the games.