Will be intresting to see how hitbox changes will affect on play styles. I feel like k1llsen / cypher will take most advantage from this change.

take most? :-E everyone gets the same "advantage" since the patch effects everybody? :D

he means they can abuse the patch more than others because they are more combat based in there gamestyle..

sp-sp-sp-spartie?

and stren-X?

all aim based players should now have a chance to counter raphas calm gameplay

i understood what he said, i just think its wrong. both k1llsen and rapha will hit better on hitbox increase.

I think he has a point. While the game is the same for everybody, the weapon balance changed, and this may affect people in different ways, depending on their style, how much they rely on dealing damage at different distances and so on.

i understood what he said, i just think its wrong. both k1llsen and rapha will hit better on hitbox increase.

yeah, but for who is it more important to hit better?

i would say its even. all players rely on some aim, some more than others. rapha will have an easier time to hit his important shots, which will lead to him being able to take more fights where he will have stack advantage. k1llsen will be able to get more rail frags than before.

and thats just one side of the medal, everyone will hit more but everyone will also be hit more. sounds obvious but it will make a huge difference to how you have to play defensively and will change what attacks work as much as hitting more yourself...
it is really hard to tell who will benefit the most and how much impact it will have overall but i would be surprised if everyone will have adjusted as fast and as well as everyone else, some püeople will get an advantage out if this, im sure, i just dont know who ;)

i think if anybody rly gains an advantage because of this update, its avek. once he hit a few rails u will almost always see him attack. then again, its like you said: the players that hit more, also gets hit more.

Obviously, to hit better is more important to a person who hits poorly.

the only obvious thing here is that you oversimplify the way gameplay is affected by the change

It is possible that it just means that they've lost their advantage, since weaker players may hit higher accuracies, whilst players that already hit higher accuracies hit the same. (As it was when QL was first released). However, the increase was very slight, unlike the original hitboxes.

Exactly what i was thinking

yea, this. bigger hitboxes = great aim isn't as important as before.

nah, players that hit higher accuracies will hit even higher !
k1llsen doesn't even get items now, he just hits everything

so.... nothing changed?

exactly, players that base their game on control, positioning and good decision making should get a slight boost from the patch.. not the other way around.

i wouldnt be so sure about it...

aim players will now hit ridiculous shots, so position advantage wont matter so much...

imo new patch made different gamestyles equal... i hope raphas domination is over

You should rather think in maximums, for example, say the maximum amount of rails one could hit was 3 rails in a row. Aim based players already hit this amount in the past, but the other player might only hit 2 rails out of 3. On the new system, it is now possible that they are equal.

Rail vs rail is only an example, but I believe that people hitting high accuracies are already hitting close to maximum.

That said, I doubt results would be much different, they way they play is that they always stay out of sight and wait for easy shots anyway. A slight hitbox change isn't going to make much of a difference.

Exactly. Increasing the hitboxes favors the players who are less good at aiming much more than the aim-heavy players. There was a nice post about that by Alex Garfield from EG a couple of years ago, regarding the bigger size of the hitboxes in CS:S compared to those of CS 1.6. Let me quote him:

"When a game is made easier overall, players do not benefit equally. When a game is made easier overall, players at a lower skill level benefit much more from the change than players at a higher skill level.

Example:

If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.

Example 2:

If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer.

These two examples deal with narrowing the skill gap in a given activity by making it easier for everyone. People bring this point up all the time: "Yeah, Source is easier, but it's easier for everyone, so it doesn't matter" - NO. Wrong.

The fact that when a game is easier, it's easier for everyone, is totally irrelevant in the Source/1.6 discourse. The relevant question is, "who benefits from Source being easier?" And obviously, just as a basketball player who couldn't hit as many shots with a smaller hoop would benefit more from a doubled rim diameter than Kobe Bryant would, and a DDR player who couldn't beat "expert" would benefit more from moving down to "medium" than a player would could already beat "expert" would, gamers who can't play at the top level in CS 1.6 benefit more from moving to Source (the easier game of the two; a game with bigger targets, easier guns, relatively slower movement, and stronger flashbangs) than the gamers who already could play at the highest level in 1.6 do.

This is why it's called "narrowing the skill gap", because all of a sudden, there is tight competition, where before, there was no tight competition. Everyone in Counter-Strike culture knows that Source players cannot transition to 1.6, while 1.6 players can transition to Source, and that if a team like Hyper were to play a team like coL in 1.6, it would be an absolute blowout. But in Source, since the skill gap has been narrowed, there's legitimate competition all of a sudden. The teams are at the same level. This is because, when a game is made easier, even though it's easier for everyone, the change serves to level the playing field, because players of a lower skill level benefit more from the change than players of a higher skill level. "


Obviously this is about the aim aspect of the game, not positioning/control etc.

sums it up nicely. That is exactly what I think.

Good analogy.

Again people can't read between the lines what is actually being said here.

What follows from all this blah blah blah, is that by increasing the size of the hitbox (or whatever analogy you want to use) the game has become HARDER for the "aim based" players to win NOT easier. Simply because a part of their skill-set, which they spend hours and hours perfecting has become less important.

The lazy way to react to all of this is to whine and complain using vague terms, like "the game requires less skill now" or "the game has become easier" etc.

No the game doesn't require less skill, the game requires a different set of skills, and either you adapt and put in the required work or you lose. Simple as that.

Also that Kobe Bryant analogy is pretty lame. I'm sure there are thousands of players who are just as good as Kobe Bryant at shooting jump shots. The difference is that Kobe Bryant will hit that shot in the last second of the final game for the NBA championship. While you certainly won't, no matter if the rim is twice the size or not.

mmh no offense but reading your comment about Bryant I think that analogy went right over your head :p

You say "the game requires a different set of skills" but the point is that no other skills were introduced, the same skills are required except that aiming is now made easier (and I already said in the last sentence of my post that it was about the aim aspect of the game).

Your analogy isn't perfect though. To paraphrase Bruce Lee 'Basketball hoops don't shoot back.' Aiming has been made slightly easier so the impetus is on aim players to position themselves to hit pixel shots their opponents cannot duplicate.

Moreover, this'll be the first lan with the new hitboxes. It's entirely possible (especially after seeing Spart1e's zotac win) that this one small change will completely change the pace of the game. The time to be aggressive, the time to not be aggressive; these have both changed. Speculation is fun and all but I'm eager to see what actually happens.

Basketball hoops also don't use a railgun or a rocket launcher, they don't strafejump and they don't have a "|]" bind. That's why it's called an analogy, it was there to illustrate the decrease in the skill gap and it served its purpose perfectly. Whether or not the game is played differently as a result (I'm certainly not denying it will) is irrelevant to the fact that it is still made easier.

The fact that both players will hit more than they would have previously on a flat plane with nothing to hide behind and all weapons is inarguable. This, however, is not how duel is played.

You initial hypothesis that "increasing the hitboxes favors the players who are less good at aiming much more than the aim-heavy players," appears to have been disproved twice now, once online and once on lan (Spart1e v rapha).

Also, on your analogy (which you claim perfectly describes the current 'decrease in skillgap' between great and good aim): I think there's one main thing you're not taking into account. In quakelive duel the speed, angle, and amount of hitbox showing to your opponent, to name the first few factors that come to mind, can be controlled. In basketball the hoop is stationary, it cannot hide behind things, and most importantly, you do not have to factor the aim of the hoop as it tries to fire back onto you.

I feel your analogy holds more water in clan arena even if its still a bit leaky.

The fact that both players will hit more than they would have previously on a flat plane with nothing to hide behind and all weapons is inarguable. This, however, is not how duel is played.

Hmm no, the increase in size of the hitboxes means that the players will be easier to hit regardless of the environment. This of course doesn't mean that they WILL be hit.

You initial hypothesis that "increasing the hitboxes favors the players who are less good at aiming much more than the aim-heavy players," appears to have been disproved twice now, once online and once on lan (Spart1e v rapha).

erm, how so? Spart1e beat rapha in a bo3 before the update you know... And I don't see how what I said has been disproved online at all.

Also, on your analogy (which you claim perfectly describes the current 'decrease in skillgap' between great and good aim): I think there's one main thing you're not taking into account. In quakelive duel the speed, angle, and amount of hitbox showing to your opponent, to name the first few factors that come to mind, can be controlled. In basketball the hoop is stationary, it cannot hide behind things, and most importantly, you do not have to factor the aim of the hoop as it tries to fire back onto you.

That is irrelevant since this pertains to other skills, which were already there. Again, their relative importance has been increased but it doesn't change the fact that aiming has been made easier.

I feel your analogy holds more water in clan arena even if its still a bit leaky.

No, it is perfectly valid and does not depend on the gametype.

The online game was the zotac semi-final right before the UGC that I previously mentioned. I believe it was after the update. I know Spart1e beat rapha previously at IEM world, but that isn't the point. Your point was that with the new hitboxes he shouldn't be doing so.

Aiming has been made easier specifically (I'm under the impression splash is calculated off a different player surface?) with hitscan weapons. What this changes is the viability of chasing and the playstyle where one prioritizes dealing damage over locking down items.

I've already conceded that aiming is indeed easier on a larger target. This is self-evident. This is the only factor you seem to see with regards to the game. When other areas have their 'relative importance increased' doesn't that mean the skillgap concerning them has also been increased? This is the point I'm trying to make.

Where aiming has become easier, decision making and positioning and dodging have become harder. The relative skill it takes to duel in quake has remained the same, the areas of importance have shifted.

The online game was the zotac semi-final right before the UGC that I previously mentioned. I believe it was after the update. I know Spart1e beat rapha previously at IEM world, but that isn't the point. Your point was that with the new hitboxes he shouldn't be doing so.

No, that isn't my point at all. My point is that the skill gap has been reduced, not that it has been reversed. I have made this point very clear several times already, and it is also included in the analogies I quoted.

Aiming has been made easier specifically (I'm under the impression splash is calculated off a different player surface?) with hitscan weapons. What this changes is the viability of chasing and the playstyle where one prioritizes dealing damage over locking down items.

That the game will be played differently as a result of the update is something irrelevant to what I'm arguing. I have already ackowledged that I'm not disputing this.

I've already conceded that aiming is indeed easier on a larger target. This is self-evident. This is the only factor you seem to see with regards to the game.

This is because it's the only skill that has been directly altered in every situation instead of simply seeing its relative importance vary.

When other areas have their 'relative importance increased' doesn't that mean the skillgap concerning them has also been increased?

No, not at all. Imagine players A and player B are just as good in every department in quake except for their ability to position themselves effectively. In that particular regards, player A is better than player B by margin X. If the importance of positioning is increased, will that mean that the results between them will favor player A by a larger difference in points? Most probably. Does it mean that the skill gap between them has widened? No it doesn't, because player A is still better at positioning than player B by the same margin X, this has certainly not been affected by the change.

This is the point I'm trying to make.

Then your point is incorrect.

Where aiming has become easier, decision making and positioning and dodging have become harder. The relative skill it takes to duel in quake has remained the same, the areas of importance have shifted.

No, the areas of importance shifted but the skill gap has been lowered nonetheless.

"Increasing the hitboxes favors the players who are less good at aiming much more than the aim-heavy players."

This isn't your point? I must have been mistaken when I saw you write it and try to back it up with what might be laughingly called 'an analogy.'

In your thought experiment which is not applicable to reality, mostly due to the impossibility of 'exactly equal skill in every department' in a game with as many variables as quake, if the importance of positioning was increased, and one player was better than the other at it, that player would beat the other worse than previously.

The gap in skill between them has increased because the importance of the skill player A had was increased. Arguing otherwise is foolish.

This isn't your point? I must have been mistaken when I saw you write it and try to back it up with what might be laughingly called 'an analogy.'

It is my point, yes. I don't know what would make you think otherwise.

In your thought experiment which is not applicable to reality, mostly due to the impossibility of 'exactly equal skill in every department' in a game with as many variables as quake

No shit? It doesn't make the thought experiment any less valid.

if the importance of positioning was increased, and one player was better than the other at it, that player would beat the other worse than previously.

That's what I said. What do you think "will that mean that the results between them will favor player A by a larger difference in points? Most probably" means?

The gap in skill between them has increased because the importance of the skill player A had was increased. Arguing otherwise is foolish.

Again, no. You seem to be unable to understand the difference between a gap in frags, i.e. the difference in score between the two, and a gap in skill. Read what I wrote again. Changing the relative importance of positioning does not have ANY impact on how much better player A is at positioning himself than player B. It simply means that as a result of how much better player A is at positioning, he now has a greater advantage over player B because the relative importance of positioning has increased. The skill gap between the two in terms of positioning has however remained the same.

By what measure other than the object of the game do you propose to measure skill and the gap between opposing players?

At this point you're being obtuse and willfully ignorant. Your argument is sophistry, commit it to the flames.

Do you still not understand the difference I pointed out?

By what measure other than the object of the game do you propose to measure skill and the gap between opposing players?

At this point you're being obtuse and willfully ignorant. Your argument is sophistry, commit it to the flames.

By what measure other than the object of the game do you propose to measure skill and the gap between opposing players?

I'm not trying to propose a method to measure skill.

I'm actually genuinely surprised that you are still unable to grasp my point because you don't appear to be a complete idiot - even though your use of ad hominems is quite silly.

Let me present things to you in an even more basic example. If you understand this one, try "moving up the ladder" and reading my previous posts again.

Imagine a game where you have to be good at two and only two things: reciting the alphabet as fast as possible and counting to 20 as fast as possible. Each player's score is calculated by adding the time needed for each task, and the winner is the one with the lowest score, i.e. the lowest total amount of seconds needed.

Player A can recite the alphabet in 3 seconds, player B can recite the alphabet in 4 seconds.
Player A can count to 20 in 5 seconds, player B can count to 20 in 4 seconds.
Player A's total score is 8 seconds, player B's total score is also 8 seconds. You can however obviously see that player A is better at reciting the alphabet than player B is, and player A is worse at counting to 20 than player B is.

Now imagine that the relative importance of reciting the alphabet is mutiplied by two. Each player's score is now calculated by multiplying by two the time needed to recite the alphabet, and adding the time needed to count to twenty.
Player A's total score is now 11, while player B's total score is now 12.

Why is it that player A is now winning? Because the relative importance of the skill for which he scored better than B, reciting the alphabet, has been increased.

Does this mean that he is now reciting the alphabet faster than before? Does this mean that the one-second difference in reciting the alphabet between him and player B has increased? No. The skill gap between the two, which can in a way be measured in seconds for each task taken individually, has remained the same.

Do you understand this? Yes or no?

If you do understand this, now apply it to my example with positioning. If positioning gains in relative importance, a player who's better at positioning will score better than before against a player who's worse at positioning (ceteris paribus), but it doesn't mean that the player increased his positioning skills (i.e. that the skill gap in terms of positioning between the two has increased).

Ah, now I see the problem. I'm measuring the skill of each player at the complete game. You're measuring the individual skills on a specific basis distinct from each other in-game skill.

Also, I know it is very difficult to come up with a basis for which to measure skills in quake other than frags and their pursuit. I certainly can't come up with anything immediately, and I see you cannot either.

On your analogy: you're taking two unrelated things and putting them together. In quake, aim and movement and dodging and timing and prediction etc... are all interconnected. It is true that good positioning leads to better aim. It is not true that the ability to say the alphabet at high speeds leads to the ability to count to 20 at high speeds. It is true that they both rely on one's lingual agility. In quake, however, it could be said that raw aim is mostly mechanical. Positioning might be said to rely upon 'game knowledge' and prediction. These two skills, and every other mentioned form the weft of quake. Instead of grasping at threads of aim, behold the tapestry of duel.

You are once again taking my analogy way too literally. The fact that the skills in quake are interconnected does not change the fact that their relative importance can vary (in fact this is something that you have already acknowledged), and that such a variation does not in itself mean that the skill gap has changed, like I explained. The change that was brought to aiming, however, DOES affect the skill gap, something that the change in relative importance of the other skills therefore does not compensate for.

Speaking of analogies, I have a perfect one.

Let us increase the size of the goal in the game of soccer (your culture might call it football). This would decrease the amount of skill it would take for the striker to put the ball into the goal (aim). This would also increase the amount of skill it would take for the goalie to keep the ball out of the goal (position).

This perfect analogy perfectly explains the interconnectedness of different aspects in a game, perfectly.

I was going to start by replying what I already said a few posts below (that there are plenty of situations where players do not have the opportunity to actively do anything to make it harder for a player to aim at them, while the hitboxes will constantly be bigger), but I think we can even go beyond that to refute your argument. Indeed, it isn't a given that dodging (etc.) has been be made harder as a skill with the hitbox increase the way you present it to have been, in the sense that players cannot invent new and more complicated movement patterns than before. They will dodge the same way but will only get hit more - the hitboxes have expanded "in a homogeneous way" in every direction. The skill cap for dodging (notably) has therefore not been increased the way aiming as a skill has been influenced by the update (or at least not as much).

edit: you couldn't help being sarcastic (with your use of "perfectly" in the last sentence), could you? It won't help increase the soundness of your argument you know ;)

Referring to any analogy as perfect has always seemed suspect to me... This one is perfect though. You, as the wielder of perfect analogies should recognize this. Cooller might disagree with you on dodging, he seems to have a new an interesting pattern for a specific person's style of shaft.

I have another perfect analogy!

Let us take the game of quake and increase the hitboxes. This decreases the relative importance of precise aim. It increases the relative importance of positioning, decision making, and dodging.

HAVE YOU JUST BEEN ARGUING SEMANTICS ALL ALONG?
Yes. Yes you have.

Referring to any analogy as perfect has always seemed suspect to me...

It seems to me that you have some trouble understanding the purpose of analogies, since you keep taking them as literally as possible instead of understanding which aspect of the original situation they are used to shed light on.

Cooller might disagree with you on dodging, he seems to have a new an interesting pattern for a specific person's style of shaft.

I'm afraid you're going to have to back that up with evidence for me to believe this is 1) true 2) in any way related to the update :)

Let us take the game of quake and increase the hitboxes. This decreases the relative importance of precise aim. It increases the relative importance of positioning, decision making, and dodging.

Indeed. I have said so myself several times already. Are you actually reading my posts?

HAVE YOU JUST BEEN ARGUING SEMANTICS ALL ALONG?
Yes. Yes you have.

No. You are apparently unable to understand the difference between a skill gaining in relative importance and a skill seeing its skill cap altered. The problem lies with you, not with me :)

hmm no offense but reading what you write it seems that intelligent argumentation isn't one of your strong points :p

Thinking that changing one part of a game will have no changes on other parts of a game is incredibly naive. The game has changed, so the optimal strategy to win will change with it.

Lets take your favorite basketball analogy, and make the rim twice the size. Now basketball has become easier right? Since no additional skills have been introduced? No of course not. Because the new optimal strategy will have people shooting the ball from a larger distance, something that wasn't optimal before. And who knows what else will change with that. It simply becomes a different sort of game.

And in quake it's exactly the same, larger hitboxes makes shots that had a low percentage of success more viable right now. Which changes the optimal strategy, something that heavy aim players will benefit from just as much (or even more) as less heavy aim players. As long as they adapt to the changes.

And thats the whole point, cleary mr Alex Garfield is too lazy to adapt, and instead comes up a whole lot of bullshit to hide this lazyness. And whats even worse is the people who can't see trough this facade and lap up his nonsense like ice cream.

Ok, you asked for it.

hmm no offense but reading what you write it seems that intelligent argumentation isn't one of your strong points :p

Somehow I'm not too worried considering this is coming from the guy who's too thick to understand my two posts, including the simple analogy contained in the first one.

Thinking that changing one part of a game will have no changes on other parts of a game is incredibly naive. The game has changed, so the optimal strategy to win will change with it.

I never said that it would have no impact on how the game is played, and it's "incredibly idiot" from you to assume otherwise. I said that no other skills were introduced, meaning that one skill is watered down while the others aren't. This changes the relative importance of the various skills but does not introduce a new one to compensate for the loss of importance of the skill which has been watered down.

Lets take your favorite basketball analogy, and make the rim twice the size. Now basketball has become easier right? Since no additional skills have been introduced?

Indeed. The skill gap has been reduced.

No of course not.

Yes it has.

Because the new optimal strategy will have people shooting the ball from a larger distance, something that wasn't optimal before. And who knows what else will change with that. It simply becomes a different sort of game.

You know why it wasn't optimal before? Because it was harder to put the ball inside the hoop. Before, only very good players would successfully shoot from far away, now many other people can do it without having had to train to increase their shooting skills. The game is made easier overall, and it benefits the players who were less good at shooting. Will it change how the game is played? Yes. Is this an argument to deny that it was made easier? No.

And in quake it's exactly the same, larger hitboxes makes shots that had a low percentage of success more viable right now.

No shit Sherlock.

Which changes the optimal strategy, something that heavy aim players will benefit from just as much (or even more) as less heavy aim players. As long as they adapt to the changes.

No, this is _completely false_. Read my first post again if you're unable to see why. I’ll elaborate in more detail at the end of this post.

And thats the whole point, cleary mr Alex Garfield is too lazy to adapt, and instead comes up a whole lot of bullshit to hide this lazyness. And whats even worse is the people who can't see trough this facade and lap up his nonsense like ice cream.

No.

Let me spell it out for you again.

Quake is a game in which many different skills are put to the test. You have to aim well, be able to time items, master the movement, read your opponent, position yourself intelligently, etc. The various players score differently on those different skills, and the top players usually do very well on most of them. Now, what happens if one of those skills is taken away, or at least watered down? Who benefits from this? Obviously the players who had less of that skill benefit from the change, since it's less important to master it. This increases the relative importance of the other skills, but it still means the game is easier because it is no longer required to learn to master one of the previously required skills, or at least it is less important to do so.

Let me give you an example: imagine two players, player A and player B, who are EXACTLY as good in every single way at Quake, except regarding their aim. Player A has worked hard on his aim and is a much better aimer than player B. They're exactly equal for the rest, but the difference in their ability to aim means that overall player A is better than player B. Now imagine that an aimbot is introduced into Quake, meaning that everyone now hits 100% lg and 100% rg. Suddenly the skill gap between player A and player B is MUCH lower (let's say that player A will still hit better rockets), because the difference between the two in the aim department has been reduced due to the introduction of the aimbot.

Now, will the game be played differently because of the aimbot? yes, for example the importance of being able to read your opponent to get the first shot will be increased, so will the importance of getting armors etc. But the point is that the skill gap has nevertheless been reduced, like the example clearly shows, and the players will no longer have to work on their aim, they only have to focus on the other skills now. Those other skills were ALREADY THERE, they just gained in relative importance. You would already gain an advantage by mastering positioning before, now you simply have one less skill to worry about.

Another example: let's add the respawn timers on the screen of the players (credits go to gienek for thinking of that one, it's a very good example). Being able to time items has therefore been completely erased as a skill. Will this influence the game, and will players have to adapt? Sure, for example we might see more delaying to de-sync the RA and the MH: it’s now easier to do this because you no longer have to go through a mental calculation of the respective respawn times. The players who are not in control don't need to expose themselves to learn the respawn times and can now focus on doing on other things while not in control – they therefore don't have to learn to intelligently find out the respawn times without exposing themselves too much, etc. Even though the players will adapt and behave differently in-game due to this, the point is that the game is still made easier because that skill has been erased, and the players who will benefit from this are those who were less good at timing.

Since no other skills have been introduced while aiming has been made easier, the game itself has been made easier and this has benefited the players who were less good at aiming. Players who could already hit very difficult shots will still be able to hit their shots, but players who were not as good aimers will now be able to hit shots that they were previously unable to hit – and this improvement comes without them having had to train and without having improved their aim.

quake has become more skillful as dodging has become more difficult. look at how strenx is whining at a lowskiller because he get hit.

the bigger hitcylinder makes the opponent hit you more often unless you step up your dodging game.

)))

Why do you think he gets hit by a lowskiller? Because it's easier for the lowskiller to hit him. How more difficult dodging has become does not compensate for how easier aiming has become, since there are plenty of situations where players do not have the opportunity to start dodging before they get hit.

It's like having those respawn timers on the screen when playing and asking: who benefits more - rapha or k1llsen? ;D

Good post btw.

aim will get rewarded more :x

However I think Cypher didn't get his shape back

i find it quite silly to place spartie in high instead of top... last zotac he proved he is in nice shape...

With whom would you swap him?

cypher, because of his performance during IEM

lol

cypher overally is a much more stable player than spartie, it would be silly to seed him lower just because he performed rather weak at some recent lans while spartie did surprisingly well. if anyone i'd swap spartie with killsen but i think the seeds are fine this way.

i wouldnt say he did surprisingly well, we all know hes able to win against the best, and he is in shape lately

i would say his wins were surprising, we all know pretty much everyone in such tournaments are able to beat each other, but who does actually win these tournaments more often, spartie or cypher?

rapha :D

ok

but to be serious, its like mefajpE^ said: spartie cant pracc because of work... when he can - he gets in final 4 ...

bs he dont need 24/7 for prac

maybe he works during nights? eh?

SO? HE STILL HAVE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME AS HE WOULD WORK AT DAY, DUMMY

u obviously never did night shifts :D

if u do the REAL night shifts then u dont even wanna play video games :] but for real, spartie have that lvl where he only need 2 hours per day or less to play to stay in shape so its not good reason to say that he suck

so what, he doesn't deserve to be top seed because he COULD be a top4 dueler if he pracced more.
by the way i can't understand how he doesn't have a couple hours to practice every day at least before lans

the point is: he was praccin now... thats why he should be top

well then he is going to pass his group and place well and there is no reason to worry about him, right?

cyphers performance was ok, could have easily made playoffs with slightly more luck. k1llsens performance on the other hand was abysmal

luck luck luck... best excause ever

didnt cypher beat spartie in the last zotac?

spartie won last zotac? :D

Of course this wasnt online where mr swedish was playing against a guy that normally plays these online cups with 80ms?

Seeds are fine, will see how they all do against eachother on even ground at the lan

Hit +, meant reply.

I think k1llsen should be in high tier instead of spartie, hasn't been in the best shape lately tbh

If we're judging based on online cups, k1llsen has done just as well as spart1e. If we're judging on lan performances, k1llsen has done better than spart1e except for IEM world finals. I don't get what's with the spart1e hype. One zotac and people are calling spart1e the best player ever.

well every player from high/top will get into the playoffs anyway, so the fight between top/high seed in each group will decide who gets the (probably) easier bracket. if spart1e is able to beat (and i think he is) the top seed players he can just show it in the groupstage

Is it still planned to make 8 groups? If so we have 8 decent players for 8 groups and a lot of frag fodder. There should really be no problem to qualify for them.

doubt it

yes, ur right, but i guess placing him in top seed would give him ego boost, making it easier for him

Spartie best player ever!

lol you are clueless.

No, just look at his qcon result!

He was second in qcon 2009 wasn't he ? Nearly won that whole tourney to rapha...

Exactly! And in 2010 he was simply god!

In a club somewhere in sweden, lying on the floor behind the bar

lol, ye

4th in duel and 2nd in CTF at qcon?

There are no perfect methods. A direct previous performance is widely used for seeds. It is sensitive to upsets/surprises, but also puts more weights into the most recent results which is good in a sense.

He beat cypher, cooller and rapha on lan but I guess medicore player had a lucky day :D. Btw. k1llsen placed third at dreamhack. So far there is only one guy who has beaten rapha in a final and that is k1llsen. I don't get it how you can call top10 players medicore -.-

All hail spartie!!!

When it really matters cooller always choked vs rapha and cypher in the final. Oh snap see what I did there? Spart1e is currently in the top5 hence calling him medicore is just ridiculous.
Prior to the iem europe finals he said in an interview that if he advances to the world finals he will practice as good as he can and make an huge upset. The results showed that he didn't made only empty promises. Spart1e is one of the most entertaining players in the pro circuit. I mean if he is on fire he literally crushes everyone. Awesome timing, sick aim and a weird but entertaining aggressive style. Far more entertaining as cooller's or av3k's pussy style. I hope he keeps on playing and finally get a tournament win he definitely deserves.

Btw. weren't you the guy who told me that spart1e will never win a serious b3 over cypher :D?
Instead of talking bullshit you should give the guy some credit and enjoy his unique and refreshing playstyle.

Prolly meant a cypher that wasnt losing to everyone and anyone around that period of time.

Proud, rail boy ?

Spart1e had several 2nd places in the past in big tournaments beating basically everyone and he's not a top player for you?

He said that for some tournaments he went completely unprepared due to his full-time job and thus not playing/placing very well. He admitted that he's rusty even before tournament(s) started so in my eyes he was not making any excuses, just saying how it really was.

Apparently he got some time for Quake, practised and is hot as he has been before.

Spart1e in form = BEAST.

haha no player "between high and mid seed" can ever place second at quakecon and beat player like cooller cypher and rapha on LAN. Get real you fucking idiot.

There's a difference between the Top 'player' and the Top 'dueler'. Unless TDM doesn't mean Quake to you, Noctis is one of the top 'players' in TDM and he admitted to dueling half-heartedly, which was apparently his reason to quit duel for good.

because cypher isnt one of the smartest tactical players alive.

not a fanboy but if he pulls everything together hes probably the greatest player alive on that day.

You could say that for almost all participants.

Cypher high seed?? How can a guy with mental issues get top seed ?? swap cypher and spart1e and we have a deal..

Everyone has mental issues.

Plz hangyourselfwithacable.

Plz getalife!

No, I'm not gonna get a life. I will stay fat and geek all my life.

kk, enjoy.

STRENX
T.T
R.R
E..E
N...N
X....X

Never cypher.. maybe killsen but it's still an hard choice.. it's fine like this.

LOL @ k1llsen group

These aren't groups, they're seeds -.-
Groups will be announced later on.

also, lol fanboy

That fanboy is his brother. :D

I see, so he's the son of k1ll too.

Age: 27
no :P

also a big LOOOOOOOOL about killsen getting seeded over spartie.

Well it was either k1llsen or spart1e and going with k1llsen isn't a bad choice. not like spart1e's been outperforming k1llsen all the time anyway. If you cite spart1e's performance at IEM finals as proof spart1e should be seeded higher, one can also cite k1llsen's performance at dreamhack as proof.

Or his win in Germany.

Now, about the pictures. The cats look pretty awesome. The black one almost looks as if he has 2 different colored eyes.

+1... Swedland power

The black cat is like:

"You silly billy, this is not food. I shall wait patiently and remain cute until this error is corrected"

"OR FEAR MY WRATH!"

Also, I don't think funnyb's dog could take on these three cats, they are way 2 cool 4 school.

mefajpE^ cats > funnyb's dawg

:¬ )

blasphemy

Blasfemen!

You are their shephard; the focus group is your flock! Guide them to 40% lg noctis, guide them well!

blacklisted.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

oh and by the way, i got three dogs, we'll win.

Oh shit :S

Hmm, we have four dogs, five cats and two horses.

BRING IT!11!

fff-

Two of our cats are Siamese; they get extra points for being cunning and evil >: )

you're cheering for the wrong swede

GO FAZZ

btw doesn't stermy play himself in the tourney??? WTF

Because he's aware how this same community will accuse him of rigging the competition if he ends up winning it? He's doing the right thing by keeping his distance.

that and the fact that he has to organize the whole event maybe?

Yep

that and he doesn't want to delay his very own tournament by spending 3 days to fix his mouse:P

I'm rooting for Spart1e on this one, at least if it comes to a confrontation between him and Strenx.

top is killer group

It's group of death fo sho!

I predict killsen, cypher and spartie will see the biggest benefit from the new patch .They use more angles when aiming rather than strafe aim.

Think strenx might struggle this tourney for that reason. He'll hit high accs for sure, but the enemy will hit the identical same percentage or even higher.

Strenx's aim seems to have really, really suffered with the latest update.

Pretty much all the top players are out lg-ing him atm, it seems the "angles" are all changed and strenx has suffered the most from this. Reportedly changing mouse/config settings to get back his old level of aim. I would not be surprised to see strenx getting manhandled around the map with superior aim by his opponents this tourney.

Would love to see an on form aggressive cypher akin to the cpma xerp era; that would be fucking awesome :)

über lg sticking to the model vs good lg slightly off but connecting in vq3, pre dec.09 and post march 11 ql.
He simply doesn't gain as much from this change than the other guys.

Won't happen.. In 2008 cypherw wasn't paranoied like he's now.

What?!

YOU CRAZY!

Nope..I'm right on point. Go check out some demos.:)

Well making hit boxes bigger will benefit players with versatile aim more while it will not give any advantage to players like strenx who trust in dragging slow tracking instead of rapidly movements

Cooller would win the tourney via phone instructions.
Chess style.

Rapha 3
Cooller 0

World Champpionships.

/Biatch!

Off topic but w/e.

Most of the guys coming to the event are european with a majority of italian dudes. BUT there is a taiwanese guy and a japanese player coming to play sf4, here is the nick and description of the japanese dude :

Super Sayajin Prince Vegeta Level 4 Vegeta Vejita Training 500G 100% Aweshomo Power Sayajins rule the worldz Japan Japan

Must be trollin'

Didn't know cooller wasn't attending :( has he quit or just taking a break from professional gaming?

Gl Spart1e / rapha

thats what they call a Visa, or a lack of rather.

Ah that blows :( lan just ain't the same without Anton.

Looks like another rapha win

as if rapha would lose if cooller attended.

I didn't exactly say that did I?

I said lan isn't the same with cooller aka his memorable quotes / personality

Then I posted in a new paragraph "looks like another win for rapha"

he's officially quit completely :(

Day early.

march has 31 ffs

Where does it say that?!! ::(

j/k trooled hard olololololo epic trolling

:)))))))))))))))))))))

Thank fuck for that :)

He said on his formspring that it wasn't worth travelling to the event because the prize pool is too low.

Damnit, I keep on thinking your comments are mine, Scottish ESR users seem to be a rare thing!

:S

It's kind of ironic that Rapha chose to come.

I think he's confident enough he'll win this tournament to cover his travel costs.

Judging by his practice matches, I wouldn't doubt he wins this one.
125 HZ, I don't think will make a difference. And cypher is good but he doesn't appear quite as dominant as he did during the Dreamhack tournament.

Travel costs? I guess SK pays that.

He did say that. He has also said ESL hasn't paid him for tourneys from last year. So I wonder, why does he care about prize purse at all. I mean, you can't go any lower than zero....

Spart1e > k1llsen

From TeamOxid twitter:

Seems like @leveluptv trance messed up @2good's flight to #UGC - checking if he's responsible for @joe_miller as well.

lol ?!?

ohhh you lvl^

go funnyb \o/

trololololo

2gd's facebook:

I think I have to fire my secretary Trance, He arranged my flight to Italy, 2 hour bus > Ryan Air > Land 300km from Venue. wtf is this Amateur hour!?

:DD

No DaHanG, CZM, ZeRo4 makes me sad :(

still, looking forward to catching the VODs as I will be in Dallas for MLG :<

Let's be honest the only person there that could actually get out of groups is dahang :D although czm is just a legend and should be at every lan event playing or spec!

Zero4 is in really good form atm; giving rapha close matches.

He's number 2 in NA atm, imo ofc :)

I dunno man, while I haven't seen DaHanG play much recently at all, ZeRo4 is taking multiple games off rapha whenever I see them play... I'd say DaHanG and Z4 are very similar in skill level right now...

visa thank god, i'm sick of seeing cooller losing finals to rapha... =(


Edit: no pun intended with "thank god"

I find your lack of faith disturbing

edit: no pun intended with "faith"

I pray you did that in error...

...no p...

gl strenx

OH.. I heard a rumour that strenx had a fan.. here it's!

Cheers mate.

Occultum your flag .... and build a cloack device for your humour

I think this is strenx's chance to come out and prove he can be #1 on lan.

not really, i think that after latest hitbox update players like k1llsen and cypher will out aim him a LOT.

This game we play, it isn't all about aim. :)

for strenx it is

it was.
Check his latest games, he doesn't rely THAT much on aim, still I can't deny he's abusing the attribute, and there's no reason he shouldn't.

he may not rely on aim lately because his aim is fuckedup atm

*cough*
strenx vs k1llsen:
1) dm13:
- acc: strenx 34% - 29% k1llsen
- lg: strenx 34% - 29% k1llsen
2) hub:
- acc: strenx 37% - 29% k1llsen
- lg: strenx 38% - 29% k1llsen
3) fh:
- acc: strenx 38% - 33% k1llsen
- lg: strenx 42% - 33% k1llsen

this doesn't tell much, as they don't spam the same amount

Their accuracies usually go back and forth so it's actually a pretty clear indication that k1llsen did not "out aim him a LOT".

what about stfu newb? :D as guy before stated, k1llsen spams a lot more than strenx and has a lot more versatile aim.

Did you watch the games? k1llsen clearly did not out-aim strenx and you were (once again) wrong. Give up already.

love ur fanboyishm.. for me its not that big deal anyway, since i can aim close to them even myself.. you think them as somehow higher ranked humanbeings and therefore fan them xD

I'm glad you agree you were wrong!

that is perhaps so, but basing that on ql accuracies is wrong

No, the accuracies were a good indication that k1llsen did not "out-aim him a lot" because their accuracies usually go back and forth, meaning that k1llsen would not suddenly have been below strenx in all six categories if he had been out-aiming him.

where is stermy? don't play?

It'd be cool to see stermy compete in his own tourney.. and if he placed first then he'd get "some" of his money back (:

as if he'd put up his own money.

cant wait to see strenx outshafting everyone once again , new hitbox or not :)

Where are these changes?

To hit box?

Please show me

So av3k isn't going to the event after all? Thats disappointing :\

At least cypher is going to win that shit :)

porn

its about skill cap.

tic tac toe has a very low skilll cap and you will have 50 draws in a row playing against a 13 year old lol.

By increasing the hitbox they lower the skill cap. People who were not in the top tier of aim before, now are in the top tier.
No added skill needed just a lower skill cap.