|
Post by jisidro on Aug 21, 2017 14:39:45 GMT
Also Dark Horse usually doesn't refer to players but their armies...
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 21, 2017 14:46:42 GMT
I don't know if a person can be a dark horse, and even if they all were dark horses, surely that proves the point about them being better, the yanks were unprepared for them, because their meta is limp and feeble Being a dark horse means the competition doesn't know you and thus isn't prepared for you. That's literally what it means. But they should have been prepared for their lists at least, Pat used Haley 2 and I think Stryker 1 for L&L, those are hardly Dark Horse casters, it's just that he was a better player than everyone else there
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Aug 21, 2017 14:51:17 GMT
Being a dark horse means the competition doesn't know you and thus isn't prepared for you. That's literally what it means. But they should have been prepared for their lists at least, Pat used Haley 2 and I think Stryker 1 for L&L, those are hardly Dark Horse casters, it's just that he was a better player than everyone else there But that can't possibly be true. Americans made the game
They have the most players How could the possibly admit they might be struggling and need to work to improve It's easier to assume that all Cygnar players in other countries are Dark horse Savants than admit they need to work on getting better. MURICA!
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Aug 21, 2017 14:58:30 GMT
Better than everyone else there doesnt equate to better than everyone in the country.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 21, 2017 15:01:03 GMT
Better than everyone else there doesnt equate to better than everyone in the country. Which is why the WTC will be interesting, as countries are meant to choose teams from their pool of best players.
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Aug 21, 2017 15:04:37 GMT
Better than everyone else there doesnt equate to better than everyone in the country. Chain Attack have talked about this many times.
The best players will be the ones that go to conventions, because the best way to improve is to play against other top players. If you stay in your local meta and never challenge yourself against the best players available you won't get better.
There is an idea that there is some kind of Basement savant that is amazing, but no one knows them, because they don't attend Cons and that seems hugely unlikely.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Aug 21, 2017 15:07:47 GMT
Better than everyone else there doesnt equate to better than everyone in the country. Which is why the WTC will be interesting, as countries are meant to choose teams from their pool of best players. The best players from the small pool of people who can afford to travel to a lot of cons and make a name for themselves. Look at the FL meta. They knew they were good, they didnt have a lot of exposure at major events for years. They finally commit to traveling to major events to get their names out there and in the first year they got 2nd at ATC and won gencon masters with several qualifying for masters final. Major events are such a small sample size of the amount of players in the country because travel expenses limit peoples ability to go.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Aug 21, 2017 15:08:28 GMT
Better than everyone else there doesnt equate to better than everyone in the country. Chain Attack have talked about this many times.
The best players will be the ones that go to conventions, because the best way to improve is to play against other top players. If you stay in your local meta and never challenge yourself against the best players available you won't get better.
There is an idea that there is some kind of Basement savant that is amazing, but no one knows them, because they don't attend Cons and that seems hugely unlikely.
Then explain FL meta at ATC and gencon... edit: also, people don't have to go to a major con to go outside their local meta. They could be driving 1-3 hours to other metas for events but not be able to afford to fly across the country, pay for hotels for a whole weekend and buy tickets to a major con...
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 21, 2017 15:16:02 GMT
Which is why the WTC will be interesting, as countries are meant to choose teams from their pool of best players. The best players from the small pool of people who can afford to travel to a lot of cons and make a name for themselves. Look at the FL meta. They knew they were good, they didnt have a lot of exposure at major events for years. They finally commit to traveling to major events to get their names out there and in the first year they got 2nd at ATC and won gencon masters with several qualifying for masters final. Major events are such a small sample size of the amount of players in the country because travel expenses limit peoples ability to go. The reality is though we can only compare what happens when players from across the pond actually play each other (which is at big cons and the WTC), not what theoretically might happen if these great players who cannot travel from both sides face off against each other, but in reality never meet.
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Aug 21, 2017 15:21:44 GMT
The best players from the small pool of people who can afford to travel to a lot of cons and make a name for themselves. Look at the FL meta. They knew they were good, they didnt have a lot of exposure at major events for years. They finally commit to traveling to major events to get their names out there and in the first year they got 2nd at ATC and won gencon masters with several qualifying for masters final. Major events are such a small sample size of the amount of players in the country because travel expenses limit peoples ability to go. The reality is though we can only compare what happens when players from across the pond actually play each other (which is at big cons and the WTC), not what theoretically might happen if these great players who cannot travel from both sides face off against each other, but in reality never meet. I understand, but they system for getting onto teams and such is fundementally flawed. In a perfect world we would all have an ELO, there would be regional qualifier events, etc. I completely understand that's not possible and that the cpatains of the teams have to do the best they can but there's no way the system actually gets the "best" players in the country onto the teams.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 21, 2017 15:27:43 GMT
The reality is though we can only compare what happens when players from across the pond actually play each other (which is at big cons and the WTC), not what theoretically might happen if these great players who cannot travel from both sides face off against each other, but in reality never meet. I understand, but they system for getting onto teams and such is fundementally flawed. In a perfect world we would all have an ELO, there would be regional qualifier events, etc. I completely understand that's not possible and that the cpatains of the teams have to do the best they can but there's no way the system actually gets the "best" players in the country onto the teams. True, but the same issues applies for all countries to some degree, and yes the barrier to entry is less for Europeans as they have less far to travel, but Australia is just as far as the US, and they always do very well at the WTC.
|
|
|
Post by adakai on Aug 21, 2017 15:29:10 GMT
A few questions (because I am genuinely curious):
1. Do you guys think that the WTC format is a good indicator of strength of meta? Arent team format tournaments by nature a completely different meta than masters/champions format? 2. I understand Europe/Australia have some freaking good/awesome players that do place well in American Cons - but do many strong American players enter European cons? Like if we were to take the top American crop and place them in a european con, do you guys think that they wouldnt do well? 3. What are the current differences in meta/lists building? What are the boogeymen of Europe vs Australia vs US?
|
|
isotope
Junior Strategist
Posts: 634
|
Post by isotope on Aug 21, 2017 15:32:09 GMT
I understand, but they system for getting onto teams and such is fundementally flawed. In a perfect world we would all have an ELO, there would be regional qualifier events, etc. I completely understand that's not possible and that the cpatains of the teams have to do the best they can but there's no way the system actually gets the "best" players in the country onto the teams. True, but the same issues applies for all countries to some degree, and yes the barrier to entry is less for Europeans as they have less far to travel, but Australia is just as far as the US, and they always do very well at the WTC. In most european countries im sure that the travel distance/expense to participate in a event is not as crazy as here. For the guys from FL to go to something like L&L once you add up flights, hotels, rental car, food is probably at least $1500 for the weekend. To travel from one side of germany, UK, and such to the other for a 2-3 day weekend event is much cheaper than that
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Aug 21, 2017 15:33:10 GMT
The reality is though we can only compare what happens when players from across the pond actually play each other (which is at big cons and the WTC), not what theoretically might happen if these great players who cannot travel from both sides face off against each other, but in reality never meet. I understand, but they system for getting onto teams and such is fundementally flawed. In a perfect world we would all have an ELO, there would be regional qualifier events, etc. I completely understand that's not possible and that the cpatains of the teams have to do the best they can but there's no way the system actually gets the "best" players in the country onto the teams.
ELO is far far far from perfect and doesn't lend itself to comparisions between distinct pools of players. It's ok but not better than comparing the guys that actualy show up and use them as a representation of the whole...
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Aug 21, 2017 15:35:35 GMT
A few questions (because I am genuinely curious): 1. Do you guys think that the WTC format is a good indicator of strength of meta? Arent team format tournaments by nature a completely different meta than masters/champions format? 2. I understand Europe/Australia have some freaking good/awesome players that do place well in American Cons - but do many strong American players enter European cons? Like if we were to take the top American crop and place them in a european con, do you guys think that they wouldnt do well? 3. What are the current differences in meta/lists building? What are the boogeymen of Europe vs Australia vs US?
I think the WTC is a good indicator of lists/factions and the results show how strong the country is. You shouldn't copy/paste the lists and use them in individual tournaments without understanding them but that is true regardless....
|
|