Thread has been deleted
Last comment
After the major in Rio, it is obvious we need a change in format for the majors. It is disgusting that we can have such prominence given to bo1s which are known to be objectively unreliable as an indicator of team performance.
I would make it all bo3s throughout legends stage and challengers. I do not care how long it takes. Have 3 seperate streams for all I care. Just keep the results reliable if you want to be taken seriously.
Also it is incredibly telling how all the people who said that "X team is overranked" due to a few bo1s and a singular bo3 have all shut up. It clearly wasn't due to the teams being overranked that they bombed out but the seeding/format. Certain teams got an easy route to the finals despite being lower seeded and other teams had a harder time. Not correct.
The other argument I see is that they want to keep this format to ensure there will be some cinderella runs which is by far the most cringe and weak angle to go for. It cheapens the run when a team only makes it to playoffs or semis because of the format and not because of the fact they were secretly underrated or good. It just takes away from it.
Outsiders only faced NiP, Mouz, Spirit, Fnatic and Heroic to win a major. This makes 0 sense.
It was way more fradulent than the Boston major, where C9 faced all the top teams to win it all as they should.
5 replies
reported for spam
4 replies
nobodys reading that
1 reply
0-2
Major format is fine, basically a double bracket in the sense that you get 2 bo1s (upper bracket) that if you lose you go to the elimination bo3s (lower bracket)
20 replies
No it isn't. C9 had to face FaZe , NaVi and Heroic to make it to legends whereas Fnatic and Outsiders got a free ride to top 8.
19 replies
Why can’t this happen in any tournament? It’s just a result of seeding combined with underperformances from top teams
18 replies
Would you agree that bo1s are unreliable and not good indicators of performance? There you go.
17 replies
Maybe, that’s why you get to play atleast two and then bo3 even if you choke both bo1s
16 replies
FaZe had to play vitality after they lost a bo1 to c9. That means either FaZe or vitality would have had only 1 proper chance which was seeded correctly.
Do you think it's fair that Outsiders and Fnatic got such easy runs relative to FaZe/Vita despite being clearly worse teams?
15 replies
This is more of an issue with seeding and I have no problem with saying that it is bad at the major, maybe valves rankings can be used in the future. The actual format is fine though, and you can see that with how even though they got hard matches in the bo1s it is only their fault that they lost to ence and bne in bo3s, just as it would be in any other tournament
7 replies
No it's not really. Because the format is trash either way. BO1s are unreliable and not a good indicator for which team is better which is what you want.
One bo3 shouldn't decide whether u get elim'd or not
5 replies
Bo1s are as reliable as single maps. My point is that what is the difference between losing 4 maps in the major format (bo1, bo1, bo3) and losing 4 maps in double elim (bo3, bo3). If anything it minimizes the impact of one unlucky matchup.
4 replies
No they are not. Bo1s are not as reliable as single maps played in a bo3.
You make adaptions depending on the map picks, pressure is a factor, starting sides that sort of thing.
3 replies
how can you say fnc and heroic had easy rides when Faze literally fell out against BNE? Use logic. They had hard bo1's yeah whatever. Doesn't change the fact that they literally could've gone through by beating couple tier2-tier3 teams in BO3's and advance. But they didn't.
2 replies
They would have had to face NaVi after they beat BNE
nice tier 2 team there bud.
1 reply
That's just a consequence of sprout, ence, heroic being seeded higher due to the results of rmr's. Damn bro u right. Faze got punished for going 3-0 in the RMR LMAO.
I mean that doesn't change the fact that they lost to fuckin BNE. Can't use that as an excuse really. But same with Na'Vi. They had a harder legends stage because they went 3-0 in the RMR's. I guess they should seed teams based on their ranking not based off how they player 3 games in the RMR. That would fix the problem.
6 replies
Nice excuse. The world isn't fair so we should keep sporting events unfair and flawed. We shouldn't strive for flawlessness?
That's such a dumb take.
5 replies
4 replies
It is bo1s though? Hello? Did you read my post?
3 replies
brings up c9
c9 won 6 bo1's
congratz great post
1 reply
not the point
5 replies
broky fan
4 replies
broky fans are smart
0-2
2 replies
what are you referring to?
1 reply
You dont know what 0-2 means?
Unexpected from you tbh
4 replies
This industry is survival of the fittest. Accidentally progressing further than expected is bad tbh
3 replies
1 reply
Talking to these morons seems like they want it just so their favourite shitter underdog team makes it. Really bad for the esport.
1 reply
I just came back from a back and bi session aka pull day. Did rowing, bicep curls, lat pulldown, hammer curls, and a bunch of other stuff. Was at the gym for about an hour and a half. Did you go to the gym?
4 replies
Too much playing for the outcome. If we distribute the results of a bo3 and bo5 there will be less deviation than the bo1 to bo3.
3 replies
no. bo3 are known to be objectively unreliable as an indicator of team performance. how can we even say one team is truly better than the other if team each gets to ban the teams best map? we need BO9s to show that one team is objectively better on all of the maps in the pool and more. I do not care how long it takes.
2 replies
No they aren't? They are pretty reliable.
BO5's are more reliable.
BO7s are the most reliable.
If I had to guess, bo1s are about 40% the better team wins, bo3s are about 70% and bo5s are about 85% with bo7s at about 90%.
However bo3s are fine for strategy like veto'ing and even bo5s too.
Stop baiting and being a dumbass
1 reply
6 replies
Bad take. You can literally hire some lower tier casters to cast the challenger games and it would be cheap. No-one is also watching bo1s of lower tier teams. We switched to watchtime so this would be better anyway.
4 replies
3 replies
No. They chose it because its standardised. Dumbo
2 replies
i agree, to fix this format play bo3s every match, for those who will say it's boring - this is a major the biggest event of CS and you aren't hyped or patient enough to watch more maps? At least this way we are getting an exciting play-offs and not that shitfest in Rio. Other option i thought of, more of a middle ground between schedule and having less flukes is to do bo3s for 1-1 matchups.
My favorite team choke = Major unfair.
Stop the cry and just accept Outsider played flawless and is not their fault if other teams are playing like silver.
7 replies
Yes thats why they got banged out last the tournament after yes
Also thats why they got easy matchups
Stop being a dumbass for 1 second. Your major sucked ass
5 replies
"They got easy matchups" this is not their fault if other teams chocked and couldn't win.
In Major is always like this, bad teams loses, good teams wins. The cry is free.
4 replies
It's not choking tho
They played against other top teams whereas the other lesser teams played vs eachother
I didn't say it was their fault either
Dumb idiot who can't read.
3 replies
1 reply
Pretty much half the ppl in this thread tbh
Never will I allow that, BO1s are a lot of fun and that's the most important thing of a tournament, to be fun. And if the group stages BO3 will make the playoffs have much lesser significance, there should be some natural and logical advancement in difficulty and length. At first it's mostly BO1s and BO3s and when it gets to the playoffs it's only BO3s eliminations. If all the matches were BO3s it would be boring and the same thing without any progression, no way dudeson
49 replies
Idc if you think bo1s are fun. It makes 0 sense from a competitive standpoint.
You only want bo1s because the variance somehow makes it more fun but it can ruin a tournament. Rio was ruined because of this.
BO3s will be more significant with more bo3s.
BO3s are not boring.
Upsets are not fun when its bo1. Only when its bo3 because you know the team actually played better.
48 replies
Disagree to everything you managed to type out. Yes it's a competition but we're not judges nor referees, not the organizers not the team owners either. Our main concern is the fun aspect and the most fun comes from the unexpected upsets which BO1s do often provide. I don't care who and how get to the playoff stage. If your shitter team somehow got clapped midway there it's only their fault and nobody else's in this world. I advocate for more upsets no matter if I lose a bet or Pick'Em trophy. Upsets do and will happen and I absolutely love it. Tournaments should get fancier as we progress further in it and there will be a change from BO1 mostly stages to BO3 only with elimination. And I'll bribe tournament organizers so it never ever changes. BO3s are boring when it's too many without a change of format. Upsets are fun no matter if it's BO1 or BO3. It's much more frequent in BO1 so. Rio wasn't ruined because of it, it was a nice tournament with unexpected results which I liked a lot. I don't care for a 'competitive standpoint' as long as it's not fun and vice versa I'll support it if it brings a lot of fun. NEVER EVER WILL I SUPPORT THE EXTINCTION OF BO1s, I'LL FIGHT AGAINST IT WITH YOU
28 replies
baiting. Dumbest take reward goes to you.
27 replies
26 replies
You're the shitter teams if you have to rely on winning bo1s instead of bo3s to qualify.Do you not get this concept?
25 replies
24 replies
Lol noone ACTIVELY relies on it dumbass. But if you can only make playoffs due to format it's not about skill then.
Underdogs taking spots are bad because you end up with what happened at Rio instead of Cologne.
23 replies
It's as much about skill as BO3 or BO5 for that matter. You don't win 16 rounds in a match by pure luck and the favourite team understimating you. If they can't find their footing within the 30-round game they're not fucking favourites, goodbye to the 'big name no skill' team, end of story
22 replies
You can do actually. Pistol rounds and force buys and gun rounds are worth about 2 or 3 rounds a pop. You're oversimplifying this. Also knife rounds and the side you start on matters.
21 replies
They're professionals who used to be in this situation a million times, after all that experience and times they played in disadvantage. If they still can't turn it around and win the game like they're supposed to, THEY ARE NOT FAVOURITES in that particular game and they rightfully lost it. What do you not understand from all this
20 replies
"Not favourites in 1 game." Dude wtf hahaha what a premise. The favourites are favourites even if they lose in 1 game(bo1).FaZe were the favourites to beat C9 in Boston. C9 were never the favourites. By defn. the favourites should be the best teams coming into the tournament who have shown so in prior events with a good format.
19 replies
18 replies
So you're saying the true favourites were C9? Holy pseudo-intellect. You can't be farther from the truth. If you put them in a simulation and FaZe played C9 100x in bo3, FaZe would have won 90+ of those times.
17 replies
16 replies
They do because thats how probabilty and stats work. That is how betting works and that is how reality works. It didn't happen. C9 were better for that one bo3 but if they played FaZe over 100x FaZe would dominate. That's the facts.
You don't understand maths or basic statistics.
15 replies
14 replies
It does though. They've shown it plenty of times before. It's what we call an "anomaly". Get it through your thick skull. It's what constitutes the definition of an upset as well.
13 replies
12 replies
It's an ANOMALY meaning the better team didn't win. Which goes against competition which is to find the best.
11 replies
1 BO1 could maybe be that and only once a full Moon, although you still got no one to blame, only to accept the harsh reality. But 2 BO1s and 1 BO3 will never be excused, shat the pants and went to the exit. You can't excuse 1 BO1 properly, you'll never excuse the Major flop they had
10 replies
You can easily excuse it tho
FaZe had 2 bo1s. If we take into account a bo1 is a coin flip then the fact they got put into elimination bracket is fair. Especially vs other top teams.
Also the bo3 vs BNE was close but they would never have been in that position to begin with if it was properly seeded bo3.
9 replies
Ye but BO1s are not coinflip, you got a map veto and 30 rounds to prove you are a better team. If you can't do that, sorry mates you suck, that's all. And you got 2 of those at a bare minimum, + BO3 in which you have a huge advantage. And you still blow it, you're not just the fake favourites, you're terrible asses on the bottom of the list of teams
8 replies
Dude. Yes they are a coin flip. Tell that to when HR beat fnatic in a bo1 in 2014.
You act like 30 rounds is a huge sample size. In reality it'd about 10-15 gun rounds a bunch of ecos, force buys etc.
You're not taking economy into account.
There is about a 70% chance you win a bo3 vs BNE if you're faze. Still a 30% chance to lose. It also is fraudulent when they get banged out immediately after. Wait I thought they were better than FaZe?
Give FaZe 3x 70% chances and then I'll stop talking.
7 replies
Yes, they were better than FaZe in a match against FaZe, they weren't necessarily the better team overall, but at least they were better than FaZe when they faced them. That means a whole lot if you ask me. And yes, a BO1 is more than enough for a pro team to prepare and win it. If you can't, I question your competence
6 replies
No it isn't. You'll be questioning every teams competence then.
It is also very meaningless if they can't replicate the win. The team that would win more often than not in a game should qualify to the single elim bracket of playoffs.
5 replies
Maybe in a perfect world that doesn't exist and never will be, yeah, I could agree. But in a world in which we live, you got only one timeline and you can't rewrite the plot. You got 1 opportunity, if you seize it and play to your potential, hooray, you're the champ and everyone loves you. The favourites are the winners and all's good. But if you don't use your chance wisely you can't be upset, because within that one chance you got a several matches to lose badly to lose that one chance. And you know what, FaZe did exactly that, congrats to them
4 replies
You don't get it. Yes they lost but what led to it. What led to them getting the short end of the stick and being punished for being high seed and put in basically single elim whereas teams like Outsiders and Fnatic got through by facing worse opposition than C9 did even tho C9 are a better team? Why should C9 get punished for being better?
3 replies
2 replies
No it isn't logical? You would agree bo1s are unreliable. This is objectively true. Every analyst believes this and is statisticly fact.
The seeding is based off bo1 performance placing high significance on 1 map.
This is bad.
1 reply
Can hardly see there so I reply here. It's not the best for the competition, it's true, but it's much better for the entertainment and viewer's experience. In the end, buddy, that's what it's all about. CS players are nerds, but not to that extent to dive deep into the game and strict competition rules. It's fun and all games' purpose is to provide some, including the competitive games. So the entertainment heavily outweighs the competition and you could argue if it indeed was unfair and not safe enough for the 'favourites'. You only got 2 BO1s which you can easily prepare for and win and then you got to your home ground of BO3s! Potentially 3 in a row. Mane, you can't drag this on forever, you can't and SHOULDN'T excuse a shit performance, you should voice it out
18 replies
It isn't though. This is statistically wrong. At rio when the favourites didn't make it, the viewing numbers sucked outside of Furia games.
BO1s are almost unpreparable. It's literally a roll of the dice sometimes man.
Your argument completely breaks down if you think that the world championship most important event of the year needs to ruin its competitive integrity for viewing and fun (which isn't true btw. would still be as fun if not more so)
Also you have not argued why C9 should get punished and have to face FaZe, NaVi and Vitality whereas FNC and outsiders get an easy run.
I have no problem if its a shitty blast tourney or whatever like in 2017 but this is the major. The World championship.
17 replies
Listen man, to me I think I have said all I possibly could. What else is there that you don't understand yet? Entire tournament comprised of BO3s would be just too much and constant BO3 flow would make all the stages seem loose and unimportant. Only the LAN scenery would change, the rest would be somewhat the same. BO1s bring an important aspect to the game, unpredictability and that's what makes it fun. I don't insist on BO1s in the playoffs but group stage should definitely have it. I used to love the Swiss system entirely made of BO1s, but they changed it, now it's only the first 3 stages of BO1, given you only lost and win one game! It's the best possible scenario. You can't blame anyone for your shitty outcome, only yourself. C9 can only blame themselves, if they placed better in the rankings during the year towards that Rio Champ, they would be alongside FaZe matched against some weaker shit team but they were one of the shitter teams, matched against a good one. But as it turned out, they were better than the better team on paper, that's how it goes
16 replies
It would not make it seem unimportant. Its the opposite. If an upset happens the prominence increases.
It being fun doesn't matter. Unpredictability is good only if its a skill. It's not a skill you can control if it's because of the format. This takes away from the tournament.
Unpredictability is not fun.Noone watched the rio major, Krakow sucked too.
Sadly your coherence is lost after the 2nd paragraph because FaZe were not ranked vs weak teams. They were ranked vs C9 and Vita who were top teams.
15 replies
Stats don't care for your feelings matey, the seeding was performed based off of rankings / players' ranking other teams. Can't blame the nuanced system, you just can't. Adapt and get better to fit this system or get swept off like some did during the last Major, all I can say to that. Unpredictability is a huge factor in enjoyment watching CS, watching the favourites win each and single team would ruin the excitement and make things stale and boring. The way it is right now is the best and you can't do nothing about it
14 replies
It's not my feelings lol. Im the one talking about facts and stats.
The seeding was not based off that either. How uneducated are you? It's based off their performance in challengers which is majority bo1s. This means bo1s have insane prevalance.
You don't even understand the system you're preaching, Darwintard
13 replies
You can't realistically say it's unfair and look how good it is I don't even need to know what it's based off of to be secure it's good and reliable enough, I don't even need to know. While you have to give birth to a thousand "IFs" that never mattered and will not, it's absolutely fair and square. All the silly complaints you may have, you're actually dressing to those fakked up teams and not the format. BO1s are not best-of-five rounds, it's the exact same matches with full length of play. Pathetic to see anyone use it as excuse for subpar teams shitting the bed
12 replies
Yes you do need to know. You've lost all credibility when you actively admit to being blind and not knowing and still talking.
It's "IFS" but you're being a dumbass if you genuinely think FaZe, Vitality, Liquid were all the worst teams at the major especially when you contextualise it over the year. The major is the only outlier. No other tournament. What does that say?
Answer that.
Also they're not faked up teams lol. Subpar teams my ass you dont even know what nuance youre referring to. Big yikes from me.
11 replies
I'm backed up by a great system that doesn't even require me knowing all about it to be sure that you stand no chance here and obviously so. It has absolutely zero relevance what happened before and happens after the Major, the Major is a unique event taking its own spot in the calendar, it has its own rules and nuances. At the major, FaZe were a tier 3 team without an organization who just broke through FPL-C and I don't care about the names and the brand. They played like terrible and ended up where they belonged to, in a trashcan of 0-3 teams. Same goes for the rest bedshitters who came on high but kicked the bucket when it was time to prove it. You're submissively clutching for straws to keep their divine status is laughable at the least, you can be a fan but you don't have to be delusional. Be realistic and cringe at your pitiful attempts to justify their abysmal performance. As long as you'll keep toeing the line and the narrative of everyone else being wrong but the team you're cheering for, it'll keep happening even if you reboot and find a new team to cheer for
10 replies
You aren't though. Most analysts agree that the system is flawed. Why is it great?
Also yes it does have relevance. That is how you contextualise upsets and seeding in properly made tournament settings.
You only use buzzwords you don't know the meaning of and you come across as a pseudo-intellect.
It isn't delusional to say FaZe, the best team of 2023, wasn't the worst team at the Rio major. That title belongs to a different team.
You are just plain out wrong and don't understand the "nuances" you think you percieve.
9 replies
Analysts are not the lawyers, they can say whatever we've got our own heads on the shoulders. More than a half of those 'analysts' who used to be somewhat relevant in a scene for a while got nothing to do with the analysing any kind of stuff. They're just present there at the desk I beg ya. Contextualizing here doesn't lead anywhere, it's just the grounds for arguments and nothing else. Contextualize further and keep arguing about it but it's just tongue wagging and time wasting as per usual with those who can't be satisfied no matter what. Ah wait, maybe once FaZe gets a VIP passage to the grand finals and have 9 lives to replay the match you'll be fine with that. What words' meanings I don't know about? Are you sure of that? I don't care whether the FaZe team was the worst or not, I didn't claim that, they were surely one of the very worst, the best team of 2022 can't afford to end up in the position where they're among the very worst at the biggest tournament of the year. They were bedshitting all those 5 maps they played and it was sad to see
8 replies
You aren't even coherent im the first sentence. They know more than anyone which is why they're hired to the events.
Contextualising is useful for figuring the proper seeding. I'd rather look at the entire past year of tournament results instead of a singular bo1 to decide seeding and who should play who.
I'm done with you moron. You have no idea what you're talking about. You then go on to extrapolate my solution into absurdity. You are fully baiting.
Begone moron
Go make some more shitty music Vel.
7 replies
Slide down from this, you're a lost cause since post one. Just keep nagging that's all I can say, if you want to get personal, I don't envy you with that mindset. Thanks for noticing us with that hobby we've got, surely made us smile, keep jerking to the big names and maybe one day you'll sit beside them
6 replies
You're the lost cause lol. You think that the world championship of CSGO should have bo1s.
Absolute clown you are bro.
Stick to the music again
5 replies
4 replies
Ok moron. I'm really glad about where my taxes are going mr. Russki
3 replies
2 replies
True True
If you can't win in bo1 it's yours problem, not major format problem
1 reply
low iq spotted
I agree, the matches should be bo3. The seeding is really hard to get correct and it doesn't help that opening matches are bo1 where a upset can totally mess up how other matches will look going forward.
People think that Cinderella runs are fun and exciting but if you look at the viewership numbers it is clear that the csgo audience wants to see favourites and big orgs make it to the playoffs and eventually grand finals.
I have nothing against outsiders though. In fact, I was actually rooting for both heroic and outsiders the whole major :)
11 replies
6 replies
They only had one real chance. The bo1s don't count as proper chances. The issue lies with the seeding. BO1s in 2023 is a joke.
5 replies
4 replies
It's based on bo1s. You can't give bo1s that much significance.
3 replies
2 replies
Seeds are based on bo1s but even a bo3 can skew an entire tournament.
1 reply
Cognitive dissonance.
BO1s are boring. More than bo3s. If surprise team wins, then it's "just cos of the format" if favourite wins, its "expected".
It takes away from the upset if its bo1. Rather they win because of skill rather than format.
3 replies
I don't agree since they still need to win at least a bo3s to get to playoffs. Like if Cph flames hade beaten NiP in Stockholm and gottem to playoffs that would have been well deserved. BO1 gives more nerve to those maps that aren't very important in the beginning of the swiss, so I think they are great.
And Outsiders only had a weak opponent in playoffs since Mouz beat C9, how does that take away from Outsiders win?
2 replies
I'm not taking away from outsiders win. I think they had an easy run to win the major. The only top team they faced was Heroic.
Also just read my other posts. Imma sleep
1 reply
the only format that is worse, is Valorants LOCK//IN tournament in Brazil
half the teams are flying to Brazil to play 1 game and then go home if they lose
and because all the "juggernaut" teams are playing eachother (esentially) in the first and second rounds, with no double elim like there usually is, you are gonna have some random team that shouldn't have made it past round 1 in the top 8
bo1 in cs is definitely more absurd than bo1 in almost any other game, due to the snowballing economy effect and the fact that ct side and t side are not equally balanced. however i do need to bring up that astralis won 3 majors in a row with a bo1 record of 10 wins and 2 losses (and they went to OT in both of their losses) so it is possible to overcome the randomness of bo1s and consistently win. you just have to be the best team ever.
4 replies
Boston major was kinda legit imo. More legit than Outsiders, Gambit imo
2 replies
oh hey look it's whinge o'clock
13 replies
Yes I am complaining about a flawed product and how it could be improved. So?
12 replies
awwwh did you favorite team lose a game? poor little babby cry is free
11 replies
How many weeks again?
10 replies
since someone whinged about something as pointless as BO1s?
0 days
look I get it your favorite team lost/a team you don't like won
9 replies
it's 6 weeks
8 replies
no, i'm pretty sure you are whinging right now, which makes it 0 day, with a previous record of 0 days
7 replies
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 6 weeks
6 replies
6 weeks of whinging for sure
5 replies
Wrong guess
4 replies
there is no wrong guesses, only whinging from you
3 replies
There are wrong guesses. This ain't Poetry, Frenchie
2 replies
indeed, whinging about how your favorite team lost/a team you don't like won is not poetry, it's whinging
1 reply
Not my favourite teams but ok frenchie
2 replies
I'm not blaming them for it trying to cheapen their win. It's literally stating facts.
1 reply
1 reply
It's like talking to amoebas
+1 so many teams get 2 fluke bo1 wins against worse teams, then go 2-3 after bo3s start, and so many teams who are good go 0-2 or 1-1 then go 1-2 because they face a very good team and then go 1-2
You know csgo isnt BO3 actually? The BO3 format is so stupid... The game is intended to play with one game only... You dont go to matchmaking to play BO3... You only play one map vs same opponents...
3 replies
2 replies
So when you play csgo after one map you go play against same opponents on diffrent map? You dont. cs is not made for BO3
1 reply
Not really. The seeding was based on the results from the closed qualifiers. Can't make it much fairer than that.
If you don't perform when it matters, you don't deserve to be among the top seeds.
1 reply
The "results" are from bo1 matches which give significance to bo1s. Way too much sig.
Not good.
Can get fairer by using a seperate way of seeding like teams, HLTV ranking or whatever.
cant agree more. +10 been saying the seeding system showed it cracks even more so within this tight competition. last thing we need is the crap we have had in rio. if a better rankings plus seeding system cant be brought up then im all for bo3 from start till finish with 3 streams at the same time so ESL, valve or whatever production doesnt have to rent people and place for longer.
3 replies
I wouldn't even mind it if we had certain pay to watch streams. Like make the normal stream 480p and the paid streams upto 4k.
I'll pay like a good £10 for that tbh
Co-streamers can also make the window they stream on smaller to abide by that too or watch in 480p.
You can also make it part of the viewerpass too.
2 replies
1 reply
Yep. Maybe could add more benefits to the viewerpass too like caster voice lines, stickers, etc
1 reply
Meanwhile faze and g2..
1 reply
But this would help Liquid qualify to major playoffs
The swiss format is garbage and always has been. It is the worst format on the planet and it makes zero sense. B01s out the ass which cause almost every major to be a shit show of trash teams doing well and then going back to being shit as soon as it's over. It's not even worth watching half the time.
1 reply
Literally every top player agrees with me that bo3s are better
Why do we only have trendfollowers as of lately? No matter what it is in todays life people just settle in on what's being served to them and THAT is also the problem. Even our top analysts seem to not have many issues with the new format and seeding which is worrying aswell because we hope to a certain degree that their expertise can change perspective of Valve and organizers on these topics.
But when the big mass already gives thumbs up and our 'competent' People from the scene don't stand up either we won't have a chance of changing that around. Also I never get why a well oiled and running machine that worked until now had to be replaced!? Just to freshen things up?
Now playing
ESL TV
28581 viewers
Top streams
All(30)
Casters(13)
Streamers(11)
Organizers(6)
ESL TV
(28581)
ESL TV B
(5084)
gaules
(4169)
freakazoid
(3992)
Elisa Viihde
(2511)
Dosia
(2108)
HeatoN
(2090)
Maincast 2
(1683)
Maincast
(1660)
Esportstudion
(1162)
CCT
(1148)
Werty
(612)
innocent
(603)
Fortuna (YouTube)
(595)
mch
(413)
UKICTV
(401)
mantuu
(356)
almazer
(170)
SGL
(168)
tudsoN
(161)
coolio
(132)
Laski
(122)
Esports namai
(121)
fines
(114)
Vikingz_Odin
(91)
Furlan
(30)
BTSBrasilFPS
(14)
MrSkopelos27
(8)
Mac
(5)
minko
(3)
