Official The Defense Thread!

[Dracolich70]

Or you have, I don't know, some sort of factual basis to set your statements on. That might work too...

I look forward to CW doing well in the tourney. The SD plays by HenryDickinson were pretty damn good, especially that disruption on ES hiding in the trees.

Predictions are forecasts, and not bound in facts per se, unless you are gifted with foresight. The factual thing is they are that good, that I predict they will win this tournament - and maybe I am gifted with foresight. And since then they have beat TI2 #2 team in EU, where CLG didn't get any towers, despite close to optimal picks - lost 31-11 in 25:20. How is that for the factual?

Do you have anything to predict, or are you, I don't know, not bold?

[HisMastersVoice]

How is that for the factual?

Yup, that's a fact. Undeniably. Small sample, but still...

Do you have anything to predict, or are you, I don't know, not bold?

I'm quite certainly not bold, because I'm going to say we're in for another Na'Vi/mTw final, and I'm basing it on a performance sample slightly larger than one bo1.

Then again, I was not expecting mTw to reach the finals in Dreamhack, so what do I know.

[Dracolich70]

Yup, that's a fact. Undeniably. Small sample, but still...

Small sample? Seems like well placed faith in the teams abilities beforehand as proven against a world class team hours later.

So what shall we do with this: "Or you have, I don't know, some sort of factual basis to set your statements on. That might work too..."?

I'm quite certainly not bold, because I'm going to say we're in for another Na'Vi/mTw final, and I'm basing it on a performance sample slightly larger than one bo1.

So you calling my statement bold, wasn't really due to the fact that you thought predicting a winner, this early into the competition, but you thinking it was bold calling CW as winner? That was pretty much your definition of bold, and now it is something else.

Predictions are always bold, as it is the nature of them. Unless you are gifted with foresight. And therefore it is bold, you say either mTw or Na'vi. Does this mean, that if I CW wins this, you will call them to reach finals in the next tournament, and so on and so forth?

Then again, I was not expecting mTw to reach the finals in Dreamhack, so what do I know.

Guess not much. I know I did. In May.

[HisMastersVoice]

That was pretty much your definition of bold, and now it is something else.

No, it's still the same. Wolves did not show anything special during Dreamhack and now they won one game against a top tier team (that also tanked during DH, but that does not diminish the actual CW skill level as shown in the last game). Thus putting them as tourney favorites can be considered bold.

On the other hand, both mTw and Na'Vi has been putting up great results lately.

Therefore, my prediction is less bold then yours. Alternatively, more grounded in factual data and less based on on expectations.

[Dracolich70]

No, it's still the same. Wolves did not show anything special during Dreamhack and now they won one game against a top tier team (that also tanked during DH, but that does not diminish the actual CW skill level as shown in the last game). Thus putting them as tourney favorites can be considered bold.

I see. Then it makes no sense you counting a game where CW didn't play in your sentence, since you stated "2 games played".

I just think you have an untrained eye, which can be explained how you predict. Untrained in the sense that you just go with hindsight, to predict the next. And untrained in the sense that much slip your eye.

Would you say that my prediction was more bold, than you realized, since you thought I did it on the basis of the game against CLG, but in actuality many hours prior to that? Will my prediction become less and less bold, with each win?

On the other hand, both mTw and Na'Vi has been putting up great results lately.

Therefore, my prediction is less bold then yours. Alternatively, more grounded in factual data and less based on on expectations.

You just don't understand eSport very well. Rarely do teams perform back to back in tournaments, unless they are much better than the rest, and no team is. Especially some as draining as DH. Those are facts.

But there is still some flaw in your own definition of grounded facts, since mTw were performing very well, prior to DH, and yet, you didn't predict them to reach finals, or did you, just not expect it? So it is not really you, analyzing teams, and you not have a greater understanding of eSport, but you as you say, what do you know - which is not much, and much goes unnoticed for you. Furthermore, TTB beat 3 TI2 invited teams prior to DH to win jD masters - convincingly.

TTB was a last minute replacement in DH, and had the toughest group with no weak teams. They had expected qualifiers, but was "cheated" of that, when M5 couldn't make it to DH(nor CW for that matter). DH is a LAN tournament, and more preparation would have been gold, especially considering they played with a standin.

I made a prediction for CW, not expectations. I hope you understand the difference.

But if you think you aren't that bold, and I am, who is to argue really. As long as you understand that predictions are bold, as it is the nature of them. Unless you are gifted with foresight.

So what shall we do with this: "Or you have, I don't know, some sort of factual basis to set your statements on. That might work too..."?

[HisMastersVoice]

I see. Then it makes no sense you counting a game where CW didn't play in your sentence, since you stated "2 games played".

Fair point.

Would you say that my prediction was more bold, than you realized, since you thought I did it on the basis of the game against CLG, but in actuality many hours prior to that? Will my prediction become less and less bold, with each win?

Uh, yes? It's the nature of prognostics. The more past relevant data there is, the more accurate the prognostic can be.

You just don't understand eSport very well. Rarely do teams perform back to back in tournaments, unless they are much better than the rest, and no team is. Especially some as draining as DH. Those are facts.

Then I'd like some examples of this, because it implies skill fluctuates way beyond what I would expect to see in any team game, eSports or not.

But there is still some flaw in your own definition of grounded facts, since mTw were performing very well, prior to DH, and yet, you didn't predict them to reach finals, or did you, just not expect it?

They were performing good, but not as good as they did during DH. And it's not about the win ratio, it's about the actual ingame skill - their coordination as a team is on a higher level than it was before. A prognostic based on past results cannot account for future, unknown variables, it doesn't work that way, as you haven been keen to remind us all.

So it is not really you, analyzing teams, and you not have a greater understanding of eSport, but you as you say, what do you know - which is not much, and much goes unnoticed for you. Furthermore, TTB beat 3 TI2 invited teams prior to DH to win jD masters - convincingly.

And yet again, their DH performance wasn't that great.

TTB was a last minute replacement in DH, and had the toughest group with no weak teams. They had expected qualifiers, but was "cheated" of that, when M5 couldn't make it to DH(nor CW for that matter). DH is a LAN tournament, and more preparation would have been gold, especially considering they played with a standin.

All of which has no bearing on their future form, it just explains past results.

I made a prediction for CW, not expectations. I hope you understand the difference.

You made a prediction based on results one could describe as mixed at best and pegged them for a tournament win against the likes of mTw or Na'Vi, both of which have much more to back up their chances here. It seems to me your expectations towards the team are in fact playing a part here.

But if you think you aren't that bold, and I am, who is to argue really. As long as you understand that predictions are bold, as it is the nature of them. Unless you are gifted with foresight.

You do not need foresight to build accurate (that is to say not bold) prognostics - all you need is a large enough sample size.

And bold is not an absolute term, it works on a scale. Someone saying Spain will win Euro 2012 is less bold than someone who pegs Greece for the title.

[Helga]

wow, Dracolich getting in an argument again, how shocking O.o

[Crytash]

Agree at Helga.

If C. Wolves wins this comp. it would be a mile stone in their existance, bust most likely they wont. Teams like EG, MTW, NaVi or Mouz would have to fail and you should also never understimate teams like Darer or m5... In the end, time will tell, but there are many teams out there, who (should) start to train for TI 2 now.

Over all, i would rank C.Wolves at 8-10, so it would be not impossible to win it, but unlikely.

[Slowking]

Wolves' strong point is their way of playing with 5 and retreating with 5. It's a different strat then what we've seen for the most, where split-pushing while the carry is farming (or downright split pushing - Zenith vs iG) seemed to be the standard. It forces teams to use a different strategy then before, since the best defenders vs split-pushing (heroes who pick off lonely supports) don't really work against 5 man pushes.

It has to be said though - CLG didn't play that well, not to say really poorly.

[Dracolich70]

Uh, yes? It's the nature of prognostics. The more past relevant data there is, the more accurate the prognostic can be.

Yes. Exactly. And the more proof you have of my prediction to hold true, the more you believe it, thus being less and less, bold, which means, you should already - considering you have discovered that my prediction came before the match against CLG, be on the basis of know-how. Which again means, that maybe you should reconsider how bold you really think it is. And therefore this for the third time, is being asked - which you somehow keep skipping:

So what shall we do with this: "Or you have, I don't know, some sort of factual basis to set your statements on. That might work too..."? Do you think you can take your time to answer it?

Then I'd like some examples of this, because it implies skill fluctuates way beyond what I would expect to see in any team game, eSports or not.

It is not a matter of skill, but of being at your best -being on form - no one brings their A-game all the time, in fact rather rarely. It is pretty dynamic, because it also relates to the opponent, their synergy at the given time, how much or less teams suit each others playstyles. Some teams fluctuate greatly, others less.

Na'vi for instance have just shown poor form - in example PDII, but then showed better form at DH. Next.kz have shown great form near the Defense I, but very poor form for a long time, only to show great form once again in the West Qualifiers. aL were almost unbeatable at a time, then fell into a longer slump.

In other eSports, you can pretty much say this each season in the GSL in Starcraft 2, where the winner/finalist usuallly performs terribly in the next, and more often than not goes down to Code A, and some even takes the elevator down to Code B. MVP, MC, Inca to just name a few, and some that had performed terribly the season before, maybe do a lot better or a just a little. It is pretty much a rule of thumb that the finalists, will not perform in the following season. Those are based on facts, not yet broken, except for NesTea who never really have been terrible, though not really been awesome either after a win. It could relate to drainage, focus, and lack of hunger - reasons are multiple - just like they are when you do perform awesomely.

They were performing good, but not as good as they did during DH. And it's not about the win ratio, it's about the actual ingame skill - their coordination as a team is on a higher level than it was before. A prognostic based on past results cannot account for future, unknown variables, it doesn't work that way, as you haven been keen to remind us all.

I have no idea what you are talking about. mTw have perfomed pretty well for some time now - just like Mouz. Their ingame skills and teamwork has been pretty consistent as much as those things can be over a greater period of time. Furthermore they are in the lead in the non-pro division of PD2, and won the West Qualifier just before DH. There is absolutely nothing surprising in them going all the way to the finals. And as I said, I predicted it in May, even that they would be on top of Na'vi. However, I thought CLG would do better on home soil, though, but Mouz was stronger - being another team that has played incredibly well for some time.

And yet again, their DH performance wasn't that great.

Sure. Wasn't that bad either, considering being last minute replacement. Big tournaments require big preparation, and ofc good experience at LAN. Many teams had prepared long for DH. mTw being one. Those things mean something, whether or not you recognize these things.

But jD Masters explains what they are capable of. Somehow it plays directly into the things you go by, but I think you just missed TTBs matches prior to DH. Or so it seems. Just like you have somehow missed what mTw has done prior to DH. Them beating these team, means they are capable of winining a tournament such as this, thus not really that bold of a prediction, as you lead me to believe you think it is.

All of which has no bearing on their future form, it just explains past results.

No one knows future form, one can only predict. Counting in the form of opposing teams also plays into predictions. How fatigued they are, where their focus have just been etc. Prediction is a science. Which is probably why you never predicted mTw to win DH, unlike me. You know what you need to know, but somehow you don't utilize your knowledge on how to do it, maybe you just don't know what to do with the data, or how to collect it. It does require a sense of detail.

You made a prediction based on results one could describe as mixed at best and pegged them for a tournament win against the likes of mTw or Na'Vi, both of which have much more to back up their chances here. It seems to me your expectations towards the team are in fact playing a part here.

I think both mTw and Na'vi has another focus, and are pretty drained from DH, where at least much of mTws focus were, along with the qualifier. This tournament serves very well for CW, and they have made a good start - showing what they are capable of. Their ingame prowess should at least have convinced you, instead of being like those people thinking it more relates to CLG.

They won a tournament convincingly, and didn't make it out of the toughest group at a LAN tournament as a last minute replacement with a stand-in, where they had thought of qualification. Now they are online again, and full team once again, and continued their form, and showing their skills, continuing obliterating against CLG. If you had expected them to come out of the group, then okay. I didn't expect it, and had no prediction for them there - knowing it would be hard to perform under those conditions. Too bad they couldn't beat Darer for the third time in a row, but that is how it sometimes is, when you face people with more preparation. Mouz is like mTw on great form, and have beaten Na'vi several times. You need to look at more details to understand the science of prediction and analysis.

It seems a waste I tell you stuff, if you are going to forget about afterwards, and pretend you didn't hear it, which forces me to repeat with the chance of you continuing to forget. It only makes you look silly, and makes this longer.

You do not need foresight to build accurate (that is to say not bold) prognostics - all you need is a large enough sample size.

And bold is not an absolute term, it works on a scale. Someone saying Spain will win Euro 2012 is less bold than someone who pegs Greece for the title.

Prognostics are forecasts, and the basis of predictions. Both are possible end results. Not factual end results. Or to use you own phrase; has no bearing on the future result. To know the future, you need foresight. Prognostics and predictions are a science, which requires a greater sense of detail and experience to achieve this accuracy you speak of - but it will never be a certainty. One bad day, and it can be over. One good day, and you are in the game.

The earlier you do it, the greater the skill needed. Any idiot and do it late in a tournament with decent accuracy.

Yes, Spain, Na'vi etc seem like the easy bets, because few can argue that they are the best, when they are at their best, some that any village idiot can make, and therefore not very bold - at least a lot of the time. But prediction is a greater science, and no team perform at their best in any given situation. If you had predicted Na'vi to win DH, then you would have lost. Had you predicted Greece to win, then you would have been correct in 2004. I knew that mTws focus was here, and they had the ability and form to pull it off, and a captain that had been there before. You can't really compare a football tournament that gets played every 4 years with eSport that has a bunch of different tournaments, many played near simultaneously.

Tournaments are different. Some teams are great at shorter ones, some are great at lan, some are greater at leagues, some prioritize, some plan their form curve to peak at a certain date. These are all things you need to take into account, and like you said, the more data you have, and the more experience you have knowing what to do with it, increases the accuracy. You seem to not have an eye for detail, and therefore your predictions are not really predictions, but really just what is most clear on the surface.

Yes, boldness work on a scale, but you said, you weren't bold. And that made me correct you, since you are, when you predict, before a tournament. Most of what you write, makes me think you just post to post, instead of thinking a little. You should do this.

Addtionally:

wow, Dracolich getting in an argument again, how shocking O.o

Yes, people are interested in what I have to say, and therefore addresses me. Probably because they know I have something relevant to say.

It's not shocking to find posts like yours either. Fairly common among those, who haven't anything relevant to say, and feel left out. Being jealous and butthurt, but still crave the attention.