wow an awper dislikes an awp nerf???

amazing........

not at all relevant to my comment, im saying despite the nerf awpers are still buying awps and doing work. which they are

Worth mentioning that Guardian comfortably carried Navi to a win over fnatic on overpass and JW was able to do work with an awp today in their 3 matches as well.

I think people are being melodramatic about the awp change, the awp in go (prior to this change) despite having the same numerical stats as 1.6 played very differently when peeking because GO naturally favors the peeker

Do you watch cs?
Did you watch 1.6?

Double awp is considered default for dust2 and cache now, and awp is definitely considered core

The difference is teams forcebuy more to try to break the economy so the buys aren't as "complete" as in 1.6 but I would 1000% say the awp is used more (and has a larger effect) in GO than 1.6

I mean T side awping has been completely revolutionized in go vs 1.6

I don't mind the change, it means that the awp is weaker at systematically clearing angles like an entry fragger which always felt weird. You can still scope as you peek and preaim spots but it requires more coordination and you can only do one spot before having to either walk peek or unscope and continue peeking

I'm curious how teams adapt and don't really want to say too much until I see if the change accomplishes its goal in the top level

Back in hs I played in an indoor soccer league with my friends and I will say unequivocally that sobriety was not a requirement (for our team or for a lot of other teams in the league). People play how they want to play, I don't know why you need to make it so melodramatic. Tf2, particularly hl, is casual fun, stop talking about how someone is killing the game because they're not playing to their full potential. It's embarassing.

u have 5000 hrs in tf2 and ur calling other people boring

i really disagree with this, especially when youre young its really easy to play hours and hours of soccer/basketball. the reason kids play so much video games isnt cause theyre lazy imo, its cause video games coordinate themselves. you load up cs and you can play pugs for days; even tf2 which doesnt have as many players or as formalized a system its 10x easier than coordinating people from your neighborhood.

this is the definition of putting the cart before the horse. the skill gap is a symptom of traditional sports popularity (the same popularity that causes the huge revenues which also contributes to the skill gap)

basketball for example is popular so pretty much every american child will be exposed to it before theyre even in adolescence, from there the ones who excel the most continue to play it thru high school. then theyre recruited by colleges and eventually the nba. shaq had a great comment on it which was basically that (black) rappers and sports stars are the same, they were good enough that they never had to stop (and get a real job). basketball being exposed to such a huge population compared to cs and at a much younger age means you have more people at the beginning to filter into pros, then you have a huge developmental system built around making these kids the best they can be from elementary school.

this gigantic system exists BECAUSE basketball is popular. why is basketball popular? its fun to play, fun to watch, and its been around for ages. the gap between the basketball pro and the average player has not always existed, its the result of a compounding effect as each generation of basketball professionals is drawn from a larger pool of basketball players and those players enjoying better training and coaching.

if cs sticks around for another 50 years (lol) and continues to grow at its current rate you can expect to have pros with giant salaries too, and that wont be because the pros decided to train harder to really knock your socks off........it will be because there are more people watching and playing cs.

you argue that the economy in cs makes the game impure? what? its another element of the game to strategize and compete in, it adds another dimension. it in no way detracts from kennys' awping that he cant do it every round, if anything it elevates it

you say "soccer is like this. soccer is good. therefore esports should be like this." which is a terrible argument. guess what every ultra popular sport has that tf2 lacks? a ball. more than a ball, it represents a fundamental asymmetry to the game, one side is trying to do something and the other side is looking to gum it up. the team with the ball wants to get it through the net, or past the keeper, and the other side wants to swat it into the nosebleeds.

when michael jordan is facing up against gary payton they both have completely different objectives, theyre playing different roles. when two scouts are chipping away at each other on the flank they both have the same goal: try to get an advantage. theres a disincentive to creating a fight, because the potential of being picked makes it too risky. this causes tf2 to stalemate -- a lot if two teams are evenly matched.

you also complain that an lol match can be won in the pick/ban stage, which is a misrepresentation of what those casters are saying. they SAY they won in the pick/ban, but what they MEAN is that one team was able to play to their champions strengths and minimize their weaknesses better. a lot of times one side will be more geared to early picks, or midgame etc. and so they'll attempt to leverage that advantage into early picks, there is pressure on them to create conflict, to realize their advantage, and if they fail to then the announcers will say aptly that it was a mistake to pick gankers, and the game mightve been lost in the pick/ban.

im not saying that tf2 needs to be asymmetric either, there are many sports which are symmetric, they just aren't terribly popular outside of lone hyped events based more on storyline than the sport itself (thrilla in manila, phelps in the olympics, lance armstrong etc). theyre still a lot of fun to play and improve at, its just the more straightforward, the more "pure" the competition is the less exciting, less diverse, and thus less popular it is.

true

it was all kobes toxic personality rofl

I disagree, let them offclass all they want

if they're dumb about it they'll be deranked and be playing with other really shitty players who offclass a lot

if youre at a level where your team has 2 pyros then the other team is probably shit as well

its like counterstrike doesnt have to force people to not buy 5 negevs, it works itself out through the ranking system

its in game settings, on the right you select your model which changes obviously your character model but also your avatar and the sounds your character makes when you take damage or jump

not fishy

I mean come on, you can see M4risa flicks to a location relative to the balcony, not the demo. There's nothing easier to flick to than a stationary target, which is what M4risa is really doing. Not saying this was her thought process, but a simple train of thought would basically be the longer you have to aim the better the shot so you should shoot at the last possible moment.

She flicks her crosshair not because she saw 38 crouch, but because that spot is the LAST SPOT WHERE SHE'LL BE ABLE TO HIT HIM.

So basically she was tracking behind the demo, saw the lakeside balcony (and that 38 was about to be out of sight and so she had to take the shot) and flicked to the lowest spot that was still in 38's trajectory. Everyone is way overthinking it, it was really more timing based than aim based.

Froyo dropped 2 maps all tournament, all in the group stage (one being a golden cap loss in the groups).

Epsilon, Mix^, iM, and Aws all dropped 6 maps each.

So even if we hold group stage maps equal with bracket maps (seriously this logic is terrible) Froyo still look dominant. When you cling to their 2 group map losses as evidence that they weren't that far above the competition it really ridicules the tournament itself and looks like an attempt to cheapen Froyo's feat.

Like you call Epsilon "dominant" in the group stages because they played a single map against Froyo (JUST ONE) and were able to win in a golden cap situation. But Froyo beating Epsilon FOUR times in the knockout stage, 3 of them being very convincing map wins, apparently only equals their overtime loss in the group?

If we look at the whole tournament Froyotech was head and shoulders above the competition when it actually mattered, and its really unfair to cling to the group stages when both sides know the result doesn't actually matter. Like I cannot emphasize how small a sample size the group stages were. 2 maps, you're saying Froyo wasn't clearly the best team because of 2 single 30 min maps used to determine seeding.

group stage was just glorified scrimming

I think its kind of unfair to say that any team could have placed 1st when Froyo literally 2-0'd iM and then epsi twice.

It's one thing to say that teams are super close when they go 3 maps in the knockout and it comes down to the final round (via epsi vs. mix^) or golden cap (iM vs. mix^ and mix^ vs. epsi). Those were fucking close, but watching Froyo play during the actual bracket I never caught myself thinking "wow these teams are dead even". Close yes, but Froyo just outplayed iM and epsi repeatedly.

will you be able to do an analysis like this for i52?