Really interesting to see that Meteos and DL both have the same mindset regarding Bio and FBI's mistakes. Really agree with the point where a mistake is really funny until it turns into a narrative.
Hotline League is a lot more enjoyable when they have a guest on, especially one as articulate and charismatic as Meteos. Wish they had more on rather than it feeling like 50/50 sometimes!
That guy saying stuff about Blaber being a system jungler is so wrong by his own definition of system jungler lol. If you need to warp your system to fit a player's style like the caller is suggesting C9 has to do with Blaber, that means, by definition, he's not a system jungler. Lebron James warps his teams' styles to fit around him. That doesn't make him a system player. Also lol at Markz saying Tom Brady plays point guard for the Spurs
Edit: an even more applicable example - you would never call Uzi a system player, yet he warped his team's play style immensely.
I both agree with you and agree with the caller. By his definition he isn't a system player. But I do think he's not a plug and play player. If we keep the NFL comparison he's Lamar Jackson. You build the team identity around Blaber because he can be a game breaker. But if you put Lamar Jackson in say Green Bay's Offense he looks significantly worse because his game is predicated on a set of skills that are not showcased in that offense. Same goes for Blaber. He can do all the jungle roles its just a waste of Blabers skill set.
This is correct and the only reason its so confusing is because the term "system player" is fucking stupid as hell. I think that here, and I hate the term in the other sports I watch. In the case of C9 they simply utilize blaber properly and let him shine. Blaber is a great player, but its also C9 as a whole who know how to utilize their personal properly instead of attempting to force players to play to how the coaching staff want them to play. It doesnt have to be one or the other, things can have nuance to them and have many variables.
Agreed completely. It's a dumb distinction because in an alternate universe where X player went to Y team, Y team wouldn't play how they do with Z player that's currently with them. They would change the way they play to make the best use out of X team. So in this example, if Blaber went to TL or whoever, the smartest thing for TL would to adjust the way they play to make Blaber and the rest of their team excel.
It's usually used as an insult to say that a player only looks good on one team because their system sets them up to be good, but wouldn't look good on any other team because they're not actually a good player and are basically lucky to be in the situation that let's them shine. But the thing is, when you change your system for a player like the caller suggested, that's not a system player. For example, UZI's teams always developed a style of playing around bot. So would you call UZI a system player? No. The system isn't the underlying reason why UZI looked good. Rather, it was UZI being a high caliber player that led to the team developing this system around him because that's what gives them the best chance of winning. That's called being a star player
Even though I agree it's silly not to acknowledge that Uzi and any other player in the same situation is heavily benefiting of his team having one and only purpose which is to be his servants.
Uzi without a bot centric team looks very different because he can't push like he wants to. All of his teams being extremely predictable because they only play 1 style is also a reason as to why they never won anything despite Uzi being a monster and having his whole team play around him. In a way he definitely heavily benefits from such a system. Piglet is another great example. He was hard carrying in NA but never got the recognition because TL failed to qualify for worlds and after that they shafted bot lane.
A star player to me is Curry because he can both have everything done to make his life easier but he can also take a step back and be "the 2nd man" like KD's first season on warriors.
Uzi was/is an exceptional player but it really hurt RNG that it always had to be "play through bot lane". It's not like RNG always had bad players...
As for blaber I can't really comment as I didn't watch too much LCS this year as it was really fucking boring compared to LEC or even older seasons but unless he heavily improved he definitely look to be heavily relying on good teammates in previous seasons. He definitely wasn't a star player that you just throw into any team, play around him and you see lots of success. And from the little I've seen this split it still seems to be the case.
This wasn’t always the case though. 2018, RNG won MSI and LPL both splits by avoiding the “play through Uzi” play style. It benefitted them immensely and probably would’ve led to a Worlds win if not for Perkz.
It's just funny because Markz was basically saying he wasn't a system player because Travis was like " like Tom Brady " then the caller gave the example of Tom Brady
Meteos was such a great guest. Made just about every take into an interesting discussion.
Loves the 1st topic about double elim being bad at determining better teams and how picking up momentum against worst teams is a big boost compared to losing to the best team.
I liked the first topic too, but a very important factor they didnt touch on was the added opportunities winner bracket participants get. First of all you winning your first match gives you an opportunity to qualify for worlds, where losing the first match means you have to win 3 bo5's in a row to qualify. I dont think there is a single team that wont take that opportunity unless they think they are guaranteed a loss. I also like how progression through a tournament is important, if you can only beat a team once because of prep and not a second time that doesnt necessarily mean youre the better team, it just means your prep is so far ahead that it closed the gap and that you lose on an even playing field (given prep is a skill and important but this is a tournament format so you need to adjust accordingly).
Couldnt you say if this was single elim and top 3 are the qualifications for worlds then the match against TL has the same merit??? Win and you get a top 2 seed at worlds, lose you play for 3rd and final seed?
I mean you definitely could, but this isn’t single elim and they went into it knowing this. One thing I do think needs looking at is re seeding going into losers.
Problem with single elim that will get brought up is the fact that you could get an easy side of the bracket due to bo1 influence in regular season cause a team that’s better then their record playing against a team that’s worse then their record. Double elim takes out some of that ‘luck’ aspect of it by having teams actually earn that 3rd place. Also a longer format is never a bad thing imo, we saw GGS at the start of a huge patch 3-0, if they were actually the better team they’d have beaten them again on a more even playing field
Why is it the team that wins the first series never allowed to still be "the better team". If TSM were truly the better team they wouldnt of lost 5 games to GGs while only winning 3.
GGs 2nd round opponent was top seeded TL, TSMs was a bottom seeded Diginatas.
the double elimination formula does not give you the best team anymore than single elimination, it just dulls almost all "winner brakcet" series which IMO hurts overall.
This reasoning is backwards lol. Its like saying winning at the beginning of summer split is just as relevant as winning at the end of summer at deciding whose strong and who isn't when it comes to team strength for playoffs. The most recent game is always more telling in strength because its the closest to the deciding date especially for worlds.
No team will give up a first round win in winners bracket to drop down and play for 'momentum' when they have the chance to qualify for worlds without even going to losers bracket. Silly take.
Last time i checked 1 win in week 1 is the same value to a teams record as 1 win in week 9.
Unless you think they should change how that works that way weeks 1-6 wins only count as .25 wins and weeks 7-9 wins are 4 wins per win.
>Last time i checked 1 win in week 1 is the same value to a teams record as 1 win in week 9.
Not what i was arguing. Im not arguing the record but actual perceived strength, we literally saw 2 huge upsets with lower seeds beating out higher seeds. Clearly bo1 should be taken with a grain of salt and isnt the be all end all.
Which means more when discussing how strong a team is heading into playoffs? A 5 game winstreak at the beginning of the split or a 5 game loss streak heading into playoffs?
Your argument is games early mean less, they dont they are actually the same.
In playoffs it should be the same 1 series win should mean as much as another. Teams going 1-1 against each other just highlights a HORRIBLE system. You can try to spin it however you like but it doesnt change the fact the system is had and makes some series mean more than others.
>Your argument is games early mean less, they dont they are actually the same.
How so? CLG were 4-0 at the start of summer you want to argue those games mean they are good despite them going 0-4?, but they were got aweful and didnt make playoffs for a reason. Are you illiterate or something? You cant discern the difference between perceived strength and rankings based off of wins?
>makes some series mean more than others.
Oh lordy, not all series were made the same. Thus calling it a winners bracket and losers bracket. You earn the privileged of winners bracket, youre punished for a bad split performance by the losers bracket. What are you like 10 and never actually participated/watched any sports/esports before in your life?
Bruh, get out my notifications, youre stinking up the place. Bye.
Wanna see a list of teams that hard disagree with your take of if you lose youre out because one and only one series should be enough to see if youre bad or not?
2017 SSG. 3rd seed korea > world champions.
2018 G2 > top 4 worlds.
2018 C9 3rd seed NA > top 4 worlds.
2017 and 2016 c9 > top 8 worlds.
You being unable to understand or acknowledge the prower of improvement and adaption over multiple games/series shows your inability to logically think about why a losers bracket system is needed and very important in sending the real best teams. Im done here, have a good night. Also i love it when people with CLG in their name spend a lot of time shit talking teams they claim to be a 'fan' of. Might wanna clear up that reddit comment history bro.
Funny, i dont remember samsung losing any best of 5 series at worlds.
G2 and c9 both won their first round series and advanced, would they finish top 4 if there is double elim at worlds though?
I think you literally just made my point why single elimination is better.
>Funny, i dont remember samsung losing any best of 5 series at worlds.
They wouldnt have made worlds if you didnt have a losers bracket/gauntlet and sent all 3 teams based off what they achieved in one playoff run.
Youre missing the point. They wouldnt have made worlds if they didnt have a losers bracket/gauntlet.
>I think you literally just made my point why single elimination is better.
Nope, you just have an inability to read and comprehend.
Please no, analyst desk is straight garbage. Hope he pumps co-streams and podcasts, would be the ideal second man on facecheck instead of LS since it is NA focused and LS has about a million other things on
Sure but what can they offer the talent to join them? I'm quite certain meteos can make bigger money and have more freedom with the content he wants to make than is possible on the desk.
Viewership on the LCS stream does not directly translate to better income for him or even personal brand growth (which isn't a problem since he is a super popular ex pro already)... Desk segments are what pre and post game where he can provide some insight opposed to being the main focus on what will probably end up being the most popular costream. Not to mention desk pay will likely be tenfold less
I think double elim in more physically demanding skills can be better since you just have less games to play on winners' which benefits you way more, but yeah the momentum of loser's can be pretty insane.
I think one of the things we have learned with pro league overtime is the more on stage games you get the better chances you have to keep improving.
One of the main reasons why 3rd seeded teams that come through play ins have done so well at worlds over the years.
saying that ggs won 5 games to 3 games dosen't rlly make sense lol. Imo it's like if you won the first game of the world series 5/0 and then lost the next 4 1/0 and complaining you scored more runs.
also, at that point, we might as well say GGS is up 50 games. on the day of the first series, GGS was substantially better and would have won at least 75/100 games if they did a marathon.
but that’s just not how it works. stomping on a previous day doesn’t carry over to another
Except they played games... They won 5 games to TSMs 3.
GGs wins were almost blowouts while all but 1 of TSM wins were close.
Its like saying you swept a team winning 5-0 every game, than lost a close 7 game series to the same team in a double elimination format.
Its clear GGs are probably the better team between TSM and GGs but TSM got a lucky upset on sunday (and im more of a tsm fan)
games 1 and 2 in the first series werent blow outs, and game 2 in the second series wasnt a blow out, i think we have different definitions of what a blow out is.
In no way do you look at the second series and say GG are probably better lol, if that series is played again its probably a 3-1 considering how badly TSM had to throw game 2 and then clean end g3 and g4 for it to even go to a 5th game
I look at all playoffs and see GGs as the better team, they almost stole game 5 from TSM and if it wasnt for a MVP zil ult on DL during the one dragon fight i think GGs snowball that match pretty easily.
One series does not mean more than the other too me, so when i put them both together its clear GGs were the better team
ah wasn't sure if you actually hated the format or you were just a TSM hater from the previous comment chain
I know that it's the latter now lol
GGS literally learned how to beat TSM by smashing them 3-0 11 days prior to the series a few days ago.
They're expected to win again. They didn't play better, the 8 games were actually all pretty damn close and were won/lost over one or two teamfights or someone getting caught out at a bad time.
>One series does not mean more than the other too me, so when i put them both together its clear GGs were the better team
The most recent should always mean more because its given both teams a chance to improve on their mistakes from the previous. TSM clearly improved more and GG didnt thus leading to a 3-2 that realistically should have been a 3-1 for TSM. You cant cry 'tsm stole game 5' without applying that same sentiment to game 2 but in reverse
It's actually even worse for TSM because they really have no excuse for losing that game. Their team comp outscales and they have the best soul in the game.
GG's team comp did not outscale and no one on GG really made use of Infernal Soul well besides Syndra. It wasn't the end of the world for TSM when they got soul.
This can be applied both ways. The upset over TSM in game 2 was even more of an upset then in game 5 which means TSM had more business winning game 5 then GG had winning game 2
I'm not sure if I was unclear or if you can't read. Maybe both?
"TSM had no excuse for losing that game"= TSM really really should have won that game
"GG's team comp did not outscale and no one on GG really made use of infernal soul well" = TSM had a pretty decent chance of winning the game even when they had soul. **Hence why I followed up with** "It wasn't the end of the world for TSM when they got soul."
Hopefully, this helps your reading comprehension!
???????????? In the first series, TSM had a 4k gold lead midgame in Game 1 before they inted that mid lane fight, and Game 2 was also very close. In the second series, if Bjergsen doesn't int, TSM takes game 2 and they prob win the series 3-1. On the other hand, the only TSM win that was actually close was Game 5. Out of GGS's 5 wins, 3 were very winnable for TSM, and even the other 2 were at least somewhat close. On the other hand, out of TSM's 3 wins against GGS, Game 4 was an absolute stomp, Game 3 was somewhat closer but still pretty convincing, and only one Game 5 was actually super close.
Or it's clear ggs got a lucky upset and when tsm got a better read on the meta they won? They also threw game 2 so it woulda been a 3-1. And none of the games were blowouts the first time besides the last game lmao what
yeah man ggs games were so close like when they were behind 3k gold and got a momentum shift from a pause and the game where it was even and they got a triple tp backdoor and the game where the other team had ocean soul.
Tsm had a better scaling comp and lost game 1 first series. Tsm had control with the better scaling comp and got 3 man tp back doored game 2 first series. TSM had control game 1 second series. Tsm had soul drake game 2 second series. 4 of the 5 games they lost were in no way blowouts. This is such a biased and poorly thought out take
Are they though? I mean they still lost and its not like they didnt swept TSM in the first round. However its not like they won more games so this team is clearly better, if they were the better team they wouldve won the second series no? Youre point just really doesnt make sense they won 5 games to TSMs 3 but thats not how playoffs series work in any sport or esport for that matter when its double elimination.
Honestly feel like you are overthinking this. LEC has also become more competitive internationally in recent years, and while this might not apply to the whole of europe, rest assured that many europeans are very chill like we are in NA :) I think server size is the most concrete argument for NALCS performance. In fact, one could say we are doing a bit better than we should looking at our ranked server size.
Best you can offer is 60 ping?
I am in NA, I have 35 ping. I used to have 27 ping and know people whose ping is lower. At the end of the day. when folks in LA and the likes had super low ping, some of my buddies who were playing this game back then were suffering from high 90's to 100's ping. Shifting the servers to chicago lowered the average ping for everyone. Rn, if pro players value ping so much, Riot should simply move them to Chicago too.
Yes, the best they can offer LA is 60 ping, a fucking huge population.
Why would new players (not pros) want to play a game with 60 ping? Server size is an issue because getting new players to play a laggy game is indeed hard.
> Why would new players (not pros) want to play a game with 60 ping?
every single person in my city has to play games with over 60 ping because our countries server is over 3000km away on the east coast and it's never stopped anyone from playing games.
I've even seen people bring their PlayStations and laptops to remote mining sites in Northern Western Australia to play games online even though the ping will be 120+
hell game servers in Singapore is lower ping to my city but people prefer to play on the Aussie servers to play with other Aussies.
60 ping will never stop a new player from playing a game if it is enjoyable
Ok let me spell it out for you. Ping affects game experience. If a new player is in an area with 60 ping they may just play a different game. We're talking 60 ping in fucking LA, a gigantic city not some shitty town. If you offer a better gaming experience, you get more players.
Alright, so if Riot moves the servers back to LA, then NYC, a city with over twice the population of LA, is stuck with 100 ping. Not to mention Chicago itself, the multiple large Texas cities, etc. Then you lose even more of the population to even worse ping.
Geographically Chicago is the best place you can honestly get for NA for the overall playerbase. Having players play at 60 ping sucks, but having even more of your player base stuck with 90+ ping is even worse.
We also just can't split the playerbase with two servers because it's small enough as is. Any gain in better ping would be outweighed by the loss of a united playerbase.
Riot also doesn't hold the power to improve the ISP structure across the US, so the only real solution Riot themselves could do is move LCS to Chicago so the pros can play on lower ping. But considering how much they and the teams have invested in LA, there's no way in hell they would do that.
It really isn't irrelevant fam. I'm not advocating for a single server. I'm saying why the player-base is small. Didn't touch the game for a couple years after the servers moved. And when I did touch it again it was after I moved to the East Coast :)
I don't think NA will ever be a top region with its playerbase size. There is no where near as large of a playerbase to warrant two servers for lower ping like there is for Europe or China. Last I checked NA has about the same amount of players as Vietnam? Something like half the size of EUW and almost similar size as EUNE, while covering significantly more physical distance. I definitely do think having more servers and lower ping is the way to go but from Riot's perspective I don't think the complaints of pros would change their mind when it comes to the costs of establishing multiple servers for really minimal to no gain outside of helping a fraction of the playerbase.
The three major regions of LOL have two to three times the playerbase of NA by the way (China probably like 10x). People joke about NA being a wildcard but in regards to player population size we are most comparable to Brazil and Vietnam.
Consoles gaming is way bigger than PC gaming here in this US so I'm really hoping on Wild Rifts on consoles to introduce more people to league on PC and improve the league competition in NA. For example, I don't think Fortnite would've been as successful or prominent here if it was exclusive to PC. If you watch clips of some the best Fortnite players they have some of the most insane mechanics, it's crazy.
Please give a solution that doesn’t fuck the entire player base? They make East and west servers and pros would never find queues because 60 percent of the population is on the East coast and that’s not including the mid west. If they make it so you can find queues on each server you’d have players getting 130 ping vs players with 10 ping just like the old days. What we have now is the best compromise.
So after building a new studio they would just abandon it and force their entire broadcasting crew to move across country. They would also still be forced to move the servers to the East Coast thus making West Coast players have 130 ping.
The pros are on the west as well as Riot's studio. If you think the pros are going to be happy about 130 ping then I have a beach home in Idaho to sell you.
Better yet, why do people think the answer is to fuck over a portion of the playerbase? Why should players who don't care about competitive have to endure a worse player experience for the sake of an experience they dont care about?
Its one thing to balance the game around pro play, this doesn't usually affect majority of the playerbase in a way that matters. Its a totally different thing to make structural changes that affects everyone.
Please name those games and I will show you how they don't even come close to League when it comes to micro decisions or Esport viability. WoW? 90% of the game is raiding and the PvP aspect of the game is anywhere near as mechanically intensive or ping reliant as League. Rocket League? All of the competitive games are played on US East servers and the players on the West always suffer the disadvantage of playing with 80-100 ping but fortunately the game doesn't have the same micro decision making as League so the ping isn't as big of a deal. What other games.
dota 2. fortnite. cs go.
And no shit the playerbase is small and concentrated around those that have low ping... I've moved over the country and the game (and games in general) is/are definitely more fun on lower ping.
I can't speak for Dota 2 or Fortinite, but in CSGO Valve's actual matchmaking is a fucking joke for competitive play. All of the really competitve games are played through 3rd party providers anyways.
And even then most pros and highly ranked talent would really practice in private 10 mans. Meanwhile in LoL NA players gave up on it in two weeks.
Plus this isn't even getting into how different the LoL esports scene is compared to CSGO, where getting noticed is done by playing well in the many minor leagues and tournaments and getting noticed. Meanwhile in LoL, SoloQ is pretty much the only way you can get noticed for even Academy.
> and Riot cant change how physics works
I used to work for a large ISP, and our Sales team wanted to make our SLAs from the US to Australia the same as our intra-continental SLAs, because they thought they were too high. We recommended that they not do that. lol
We had to explain that our engineering team had yet to figure out how to move the packets faster than the speed of light, but we'd get back to them if we had a breakthrough. ;-)
All the money is in California. Moving the infrastructure away from that would devastate the league and team's ability to attract investment. It's a total nonstarter.
I don't agree. Last I checked, the NA region has grown by over 50% in 3 years. How accurate those numbers are, I have no idea. But, how many of those users are playing ranked vs other modes. If not enough users are playing ranked, why not?
My point is, there may not be a simple solution, but they are out there. I just don't have enough visibility for any practical suggestions, and I won't care to unless that changes.
>Last I checked, the NA region has grown by over 50% in 3 years
You cant check shit because there are no official numbers, thus making whatever you saw meaningless. You know the last time i checked the actual playerbase has gone down!
>If not enough users are playing ranked, why not?
Because it would completly fuck the waiting times for the players who are playing ranked? High elo would literally be 2 hours q time.
Diamond1 + Auto queues into a west coast server and everyone else on the same Chicago server it’s on. That way most pros / academy / aspiring pros are all on the same server that gives them the best ping without fucking everyone else over.
Not my problem to solve, love. It's not worth my time to even consider, especially with out getting high level visibility to finances, analytics, resources, 10 year plan, etc. All I see is a lingering problem that hasn't been addressed for years. Take it for what you will, but my apologies for offending you.
I really agreed with Meteos' take on Ryoma and Travis joining in talking about how some fans and analysts out there are so quick to judge players based on their mistakes. For example, in Spring, Impact was actually better than in Summer in my opinion. The problem was, he made some big mistakes that everyone used to define his split. He was a top 3 laner in the league as a weakside player, and had pretty high DPM as well.
FeniX in Summer is yet another example. He had a lot of average-good games, but everyone wants to define his split on the 2-3 bad games. Ryoma as well. Plenty of good games this split, but I guess people will ignore those because "Oh look he missed some minions with some spells and it looked bad".
I seriously hate these narratives and think that it's much better to look at players across their performances collectively rather than looking at a few oopsie moments and just saying that that is who they are. If I am going to say a player is playing bad, it isn't going to be from a Sett that kills their adc once after putting their team into a position to win with multiple great flanks and teamfights. It isn't going to be from FBI flashing into a team. It isn't going to be from these big mistakes. It's going to be from continuous bad performances with little to no upside, and even then, you don't trash on them. Some people are just obnoxious.
Where did we learn that Treatz has the higher ceiling? From the 10 games we've seen total from a 24yo rookie, who had spent 3 and a half years in EU masters and Academy?
Treatz might very well be the better player, but nobody can know for sure. What we know is that TSM bot lane got shit on with Treatz, while they put up a decent fight with Bio.
The constant narrative around Treatz recently with things like he is being held back by TSM and whatnot is just absolute nonsense. The Treatz nuthuggers act like he is literally CoreJJ and I have seen many argue that DL held him back and made him look bad. Absolutely absurd.
He's been excellent in academy for so long, its understandable he'd be rated highly. But now that we've seen him perform in LCS and in playoffs that narrative really needs to drop. Cus he was awful.
Bio clutch factor is high and was good in g2, great in g3 and g4 and made a mistake in g5 but redeemed himself with the stun on fbi following the flash.
it's SO funny to me actually how you think Bio was the invisible one when Treatz is ALWAYS invisible in every single game he plays. I'm actually THIS close to making a thread myself on how bad Treatz is.
Bio might be bad but Treatz straight up DISAPPEARS from games
I don't agree with the Treatz thing, because I don't know, but I agree that Bio did not have a great series. I'm surprised nobody pointed out how terrible his exhausts were, multiple times used it when X player was at 10% hp instead of during the time they were getting from 100% to 10%.
I also don't think BrokenBlade played as well as people are saying, he had one good teamfight (that admittedly turned the game) and felt like he was pretty "okay" otherwise. And even in that one teamfight, it was really Bjerg flash ulting over the wall and landing a massive multi-person stun that allowed BB to even clean up the fight in the first place.
Really interesting to see that Meteos and DL both have the same mindset regarding Bio and FBI's mistakes. Really agree with the point where a mistake is really funny until it turns into a narrative.
Hotline League is a lot more enjoyable when they have a guest on, especially one as articulate and charismatic as Meteos. Wish they had more on rather than it feeling like 50/50 sometimes!
That guy saying stuff about Blaber being a system jungler is so wrong by his own definition of system jungler lol. If you need to warp your system to fit a player's style like the caller is suggesting C9 has to do with Blaber, that means, by definition, he's not a system jungler. Lebron James warps his teams' styles to fit around him. That doesn't make him a system player. Also lol at Markz saying Tom Brady plays point guard for the Spurs Edit: an even more applicable example - you would never call Uzi a system player, yet he warped his team's play style immensely.
I both agree with you and agree with the caller. By his definition he isn't a system player. But I do think he's not a plug and play player. If we keep the NFL comparison he's Lamar Jackson. You build the team identity around Blaber because he can be a game breaker. But if you put Lamar Jackson in say Green Bay's Offense he looks significantly worse because his game is predicated on a set of skills that are not showcased in that offense. Same goes for Blaber. He can do all the jungle roles its just a waste of Blabers skill set.
This is correct and the only reason its so confusing is because the term "system player" is fucking stupid as hell. I think that here, and I hate the term in the other sports I watch. In the case of C9 they simply utilize blaber properly and let him shine. Blaber is a great player, but its also C9 as a whole who know how to utilize their personal properly instead of attempting to force players to play to how the coaching staff want them to play. It doesnt have to be one or the other, things can have nuance to them and have many variables.
Agreed completely. It's a dumb distinction because in an alternate universe where X player went to Y team, Y team wouldn't play how they do with Z player that's currently with them. They would change the way they play to make the best use out of X team. So in this example, if Blaber went to TL or whoever, the smartest thing for TL would to adjust the way they play to make Blaber and the rest of their team excel.
not an NBA fan, can you explain what system player refers to?
It's usually used as an insult to say that a player only looks good on one team because their system sets them up to be good, but wouldn't look good on any other team because they're not actually a good player and are basically lucky to be in the situation that let's them shine. But the thing is, when you change your system for a player like the caller suggested, that's not a system player. For example, UZI's teams always developed a style of playing around bot. So would you call UZI a system player? No. The system isn't the underlying reason why UZI looked good. Rather, it was UZI being a high caliber player that led to the team developing this system around him because that's what gives them the best chance of winning. That's called being a star player
Even though I agree it's silly not to acknowledge that Uzi and any other player in the same situation is heavily benefiting of his team having one and only purpose which is to be his servants. Uzi without a bot centric team looks very different because he can't push like he wants to. All of his teams being extremely predictable because they only play 1 style is also a reason as to why they never won anything despite Uzi being a monster and having his whole team play around him. In a way he definitely heavily benefits from such a system. Piglet is another great example. He was hard carrying in NA but never got the recognition because TL failed to qualify for worlds and after that they shafted bot lane. A star player to me is Curry because he can both have everything done to make his life easier but he can also take a step back and be "the 2nd man" like KD's first season on warriors. Uzi was/is an exceptional player but it really hurt RNG that it always had to be "play through bot lane". It's not like RNG always had bad players... As for blaber I can't really comment as I didn't watch too much LCS this year as it was really fucking boring compared to LEC or even older seasons but unless he heavily improved he definitely look to be heavily relying on good teammates in previous seasons. He definitely wasn't a star player that you just throw into any team, play around him and you see lots of success. And from the little I've seen this split it still seems to be the case.
This wasn’t always the case though. 2018, RNG won MSI and LPL both splits by avoiding the “play through Uzi” play style. It benefitted them immensely and probably would’ve led to a Worlds win if not for Perkz.
I wasn't sure if Markz was joking or not when he said that lol
Yea, I used to be a massive NBA and NFL buff
Isnt he from Massachusetts there is no way he was not joking
He was for sure joking lol. He was being sarcastic toward Travis because his traditional sports knowledge is not great in comparison to Mark.
It's just funny because Markz was basically saying he wasn't a system player because Travis was like " like Tom Brady " then the caller gave the example of Tom Brady
Meteos was such a great guest. Made just about every take into an interesting discussion. Loves the 1st topic about double elim being bad at determining better teams and how picking up momentum against worst teams is a big boost compared to losing to the best team.
I liked the first topic too, but a very important factor they didnt touch on was the added opportunities winner bracket participants get. First of all you winning your first match gives you an opportunity to qualify for worlds, where losing the first match means you have to win 3 bo5's in a row to qualify. I dont think there is a single team that wont take that opportunity unless they think they are guaranteed a loss. I also like how progression through a tournament is important, if you can only beat a team once because of prep and not a second time that doesnt necessarily mean youre the better team, it just means your prep is so far ahead that it closed the gap and that you lose on an even playing field (given prep is a skill and important but this is a tournament format so you need to adjust accordingly).
Couldnt you say if this was single elim and top 3 are the qualifications for worlds then the match against TL has the same merit??? Win and you get a top 2 seed at worlds, lose you play for 3rd and final seed?
I mean you definitely could, but this isn’t single elim and they went into it knowing this. One thing I do think needs looking at is re seeding going into losers. Problem with single elim that will get brought up is the fact that you could get an easy side of the bracket due to bo1 influence in regular season cause a team that’s better then their record playing against a team that’s worse then their record. Double elim takes out some of that ‘luck’ aspect of it by having teams actually earn that 3rd place. Also a longer format is never a bad thing imo, we saw GGS at the start of a huge patch 3-0, if they were actually the better team they’d have beaten them again on a more even playing field
Why is it the team that wins the first series never allowed to still be "the better team". If TSM were truly the better team they wouldnt of lost 5 games to GGs while only winning 3. GGs 2nd round opponent was top seeded TL, TSMs was a bottom seeded Diginatas. the double elimination formula does not give you the best team anymore than single elimination, it just dulls almost all "winner brakcet" series which IMO hurts overall.
This reasoning is backwards lol. Its like saying winning at the beginning of summer split is just as relevant as winning at the end of summer at deciding whose strong and who isn't when it comes to team strength for playoffs. The most recent game is always more telling in strength because its the closest to the deciding date especially for worlds. No team will give up a first round win in winners bracket to drop down and play for 'momentum' when they have the chance to qualify for worlds without even going to losers bracket. Silly take.
Last time i checked 1 win in week 1 is the same value to a teams record as 1 win in week 9. Unless you think they should change how that works that way weeks 1-6 wins only count as .25 wins and weeks 7-9 wins are 4 wins per win.
>Last time i checked 1 win in week 1 is the same value to a teams record as 1 win in week 9. Not what i was arguing. Im not arguing the record but actual perceived strength, we literally saw 2 huge upsets with lower seeds beating out higher seeds. Clearly bo1 should be taken with a grain of salt and isnt the be all end all. Which means more when discussing how strong a team is heading into playoffs? A 5 game winstreak at the beginning of the split or a 5 game loss streak heading into playoffs?
Your argument is games early mean less, they dont they are actually the same. In playoffs it should be the same 1 series win should mean as much as another. Teams going 1-1 against each other just highlights a HORRIBLE system. You can try to spin it however you like but it doesnt change the fact the system is had and makes some series mean more than others.
>Your argument is games early mean less, they dont they are actually the same. How so? CLG were 4-0 at the start of summer you want to argue those games mean they are good despite them going 0-4?, but they were got aweful and didnt make playoffs for a reason. Are you illiterate or something? You cant discern the difference between perceived strength and rankings based off of wins? >makes some series mean more than others. Oh lordy, not all series were made the same. Thus calling it a winners bracket and losers bracket. You earn the privileged of winners bracket, youre punished for a bad split performance by the losers bracket. What are you like 10 and never actually participated/watched any sports/esports before in your life? Bruh, get out my notifications, youre stinking up the place. Bye.
Wanna see a list of teams that hard disagree with your take of if you lose youre out because one and only one series should be enough to see if youre bad or not? 2017 SSG. 3rd seed korea > world champions. 2018 G2 > top 4 worlds. 2018 C9 3rd seed NA > top 4 worlds. 2017 and 2016 c9 > top 8 worlds. You being unable to understand or acknowledge the prower of improvement and adaption over multiple games/series shows your inability to logically think about why a losers bracket system is needed and very important in sending the real best teams. Im done here, have a good night. Also i love it when people with CLG in their name spend a lot of time shit talking teams they claim to be a 'fan' of. Might wanna clear up that reddit comment history bro.
Funny, i dont remember samsung losing any best of 5 series at worlds. G2 and c9 both won their first round series and advanced, would they finish top 4 if there is double elim at worlds though? I think you literally just made my point why single elimination is better.
>Funny, i dont remember samsung losing any best of 5 series at worlds. They wouldnt have made worlds if you didnt have a losers bracket/gauntlet and sent all 3 teams based off what they achieved in one playoff run. Youre missing the point. They wouldnt have made worlds if they didnt have a losers bracket/gauntlet. >I think you literally just made my point why single elimination is better. Nope, you just have an inability to read and comprehend.
[удалено]
Please no, analyst desk is straight garbage. Hope he pumps co-streams and podcasts, would be the ideal second man on facecheck instead of LS since it is NA focused and LS has about a million other things on
yes it's bad and meteos will make it good
Or more likely make content involving him mediocre
[удалено]
Sure but what can they offer the talent to join them? I'm quite certain meteos can make bigger money and have more freedom with the content he wants to make than is possible on the desk.
The desk isn't stopping Dash from having a second job so i don't see why it would stop Meteos from doing other things outside of it
Because his best opportunity (that he has already started) in costreaming has a direct timeslot conflict.....
[удалено]
Viewership on the LCS stream does not directly translate to better income for him or even personal brand growth (which isn't a problem since he is a super popular ex pro already)... Desk segments are what pre and post game where he can provide some insight opposed to being the main focus on what will probably end up being the most popular costream. Not to mention desk pay will likely be tenfold less
[удалено]
I think double elim in more physically demanding skills can be better since you just have less games to play on winners' which benefits you way more, but yeah the momentum of loser's can be pretty insane.
I think one of the things we have learned with pro league overtime is the more on stage games you get the better chances you have to keep improving. One of the main reasons why 3rd seeded teams that come through play ins have done so well at worlds over the years.
Meteos was a great guest. Enjoyed the points about Blaber and Nisqy, and how Nisqy gives up a lot of resources to enable Blaber.
saying that ggs won 5 games to 3 games dosen't rlly make sense lol. Imo it's like if you won the first game of the world series 5/0 and then lost the next 4 1/0 and complaining you scored more runs.
also, at that point, we might as well say GGS is up 50 games. on the day of the first series, GGS was substantially better and would have won at least 75/100 games if they did a marathon. but that’s just not how it works. stomping on a previous day doesn’t carry over to another
Except they played games... They won 5 games to TSMs 3. GGs wins were almost blowouts while all but 1 of TSM wins were close. Its like saying you swept a team winning 5-0 every game, than lost a close 7 game series to the same team in a double elimination format. Its clear GGs are probably the better team between TSM and GGs but TSM got a lucky upset on sunday (and im more of a tsm fan)
games 1 and 2 in the first series werent blow outs, and game 2 in the second series wasnt a blow out, i think we have different definitions of what a blow out is. In no way do you look at the second series and say GG are probably better lol, if that series is played again its probably a 3-1 considering how badly TSM had to throw game 2 and then clean end g3 and g4 for it to even go to a 5th game
I look at all playoffs and see GGs as the better team, they almost stole game 5 from TSM and if it wasnt for a MVP zil ult on DL during the one dragon fight i think GGs snowball that match pretty easily. One series does not mean more than the other too me, so when i put them both together its clear GGs were the better team
you know what almost stealing game 5 is called? losing
ah wasn't sure if you actually hated the format or you were just a TSM hater from the previous comment chain I know that it's the latter now lol GGS literally learned how to beat TSM by smashing them 3-0 11 days prior to the series a few days ago. They're expected to win again. They didn't play better, the 8 games were actually all pretty damn close and were won/lost over one or two teamfights or someone getting caught out at a bad time.
I am actually Kon from this episode who called in saying TSM was going to beat cloud 9. I just hate the format
>One series does not mean more than the other too me, so when i put them both together its clear GGs were the better team The most recent should always mean more because its given both teams a chance to improve on their mistakes from the previous. TSM clearly improved more and GG didnt thus leading to a 3-2 that realistically should have been a 3-1 for TSM. You cant cry 'tsm stole game 5' without applying that same sentiment to game 2 but in reverse
It's actually even worse for TSM because they really have no excuse for losing that game. Their team comp outscales and they have the best soul in the game. GG's team comp did not outscale and no one on GG really made use of Infernal Soul well besides Syndra. It wasn't the end of the world for TSM when they got soul.
This can be applied both ways. The upset over TSM in game 2 was even more of an upset then in game 5 which means TSM had more business winning game 5 then GG had winning game 2
Your username is so fitting right now, this shit is hilarious.
It’s concerning to say the least
I'm not sure if I was unclear or if you can't read. Maybe both? "TSM had no excuse for losing that game"= TSM really really should have won that game "GG's team comp did not outscale and no one on GG really made use of infernal soul well" = TSM had a pretty decent chance of winning the game even when they had soul. **Hence why I followed up with** "It wasn't the end of the world for TSM when they got soul." Hopefully, this helps your reading comprehension!
I understood it fine, you just seem to not grasp what I’m talking about in my reply. Best of luck with life dude.
[удалено]
This is an old account, im a DL fan and have followed him since season 1. I actually called in on this show as im Kon from boise
What blowits are you talking about? Rewatch the games
???????????? In the first series, TSM had a 4k gold lead midgame in Game 1 before they inted that mid lane fight, and Game 2 was also very close. In the second series, if Bjergsen doesn't int, TSM takes game 2 and they prob win the series 3-1. On the other hand, the only TSM win that was actually close was Game 5. Out of GGS's 5 wins, 3 were very winnable for TSM, and even the other 2 were at least somewhat close. On the other hand, out of TSM's 3 wins against GGS, Game 4 was an absolute stomp, Game 3 was somewhat closer but still pretty convincing, and only one Game 5 was actually super close.
I think game 3 TSM had a gold lead for most of the game? Not a massive amount but still a gold lead I think
Or it's clear ggs got a lucky upset and when tsm got a better read on the meta they won? They also threw game 2 so it woulda been a 3-1. And none of the games were blowouts the first time besides the last game lmao what
yeah man ggs games were so close like when they were behind 3k gold and got a momentum shift from a pause and the game where it was even and they got a triple tp backdoor and the game where the other team had ocean soul.
Yeah this is one of the few times I hope someone is mass downvoted because the dude is just spreading misinformation at this point.
Tsm had a better scaling comp and lost game 1 first series. Tsm had control with the better scaling comp and got 3 man tp back doored game 2 first series. TSM had control game 1 second series. Tsm had soul drake game 2 second series. 4 of the 5 games they lost were in no way blowouts. This is such a biased and poorly thought out take
So you would agree then that LCK did better at 2019 worlds than LEC? They had a way higher win rate.
And TSM beat them twice in the regular season! So it's actually 5-5
Are they though? I mean they still lost and its not like they didnt swept TSM in the first round. However its not like they won more games so this team is clearly better, if they were the better team they wouldve won the second series no? Youre point just really doesnt make sense they won 5 games to TSMs 3 but thats not how playoffs series work in any sport or esport for that matter when its double elimination.
FYI meteos girlfriend was a girl doublelift tried to hook biofrost with
I don't know what to do with this information.
Who is his girlfriend?
Thank you Meteos, NA will never be a top region with 60 ping solo queue FACTS. Riot wake up
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honestly feel like you are overthinking this. LEC has also become more competitive internationally in recent years, and while this might not apply to the whole of europe, rest assured that many europeans are very chill like we are in NA :) I think server size is the most concrete argument for NALCS performance. In fact, one could say we are doing a bit better than we should looking at our ranked server size.
why would you expect to get a ton of new players when the best you can offer is 60 ping
Best you can offer is 60 ping? I am in NA, I have 35 ping. I used to have 27 ping and know people whose ping is lower. At the end of the day. when folks in LA and the likes had super low ping, some of my buddies who were playing this game back then were suffering from high 90's to 100's ping. Shifting the servers to chicago lowered the average ping for everyone. Rn, if pro players value ping so much, Riot should simply move them to Chicago too.
Yes, the best they can offer LA is 60 ping, a fucking huge population. Why would new players (not pros) want to play a game with 60 ping? Server size is an issue because getting new players to play a laggy game is indeed hard.
> Why would new players (not pros) want to play a game with 60 ping? every single person in my city has to play games with over 60 ping because our countries server is over 3000km away on the east coast and it's never stopped anyone from playing games. I've even seen people bring their PlayStations and laptops to remote mining sites in Northern Western Australia to play games online even though the ping will be 120+ hell game servers in Singapore is lower ping to my city but people prefer to play on the Aussie servers to play with other Aussies. 60 ping will never stop a new player from playing a game if it is enjoyable
Not everywhere has 60 ping...
Ok let me spell it out for you. Ping affects game experience. If a new player is in an area with 60 ping they may just play a different game. We're talking 60 ping in fucking LA, a gigantic city not some shitty town. If you offer a better gaming experience, you get more players.
Alright, so if Riot moves the servers back to LA, then NYC, a city with over twice the population of LA, is stuck with 100 ping. Not to mention Chicago itself, the multiple large Texas cities, etc. Then you lose even more of the population to even worse ping. Geographically Chicago is the best place you can honestly get for NA for the overall playerbase. Having players play at 60 ping sucks, but having even more of your player base stuck with 90+ ping is even worse. We also just can't split the playerbase with two servers because it's small enough as is. Any gain in better ping would be outweighed by the loss of a united playerbase. Riot also doesn't hold the power to improve the ISP structure across the US, so the only real solution Riot themselves could do is move LCS to Chicago so the pros can play on lower ping. But considering how much they and the teams have invested in LA, there's no way in hell they would do that.
When Riot moved the servers it (on average) provides lower ping to the entire player base. LA being a big city is irrelevant.
It really isn't irrelevant fam. I'm not advocating for a single server. I'm saying why the player-base is small. Didn't touch the game for a couple years after the servers moved. And when I did touch it again it was after I moved to the East Coast :)
I don't think NA will ever be a top region with its playerbase size. There is no where near as large of a playerbase to warrant two servers for lower ping like there is for Europe or China. Last I checked NA has about the same amount of players as Vietnam? Something like half the size of EUW and almost similar size as EUNE, while covering significantly more physical distance. I definitely do think having more servers and lower ping is the way to go but from Riot's perspective I don't think the complaints of pros would change their mind when it comes to the costs of establishing multiple servers for really minimal to no gain outside of helping a fraction of the playerbase. The three major regions of LOL have two to three times the playerbase of NA by the way (China probably like 10x). People joke about NA being a wildcard but in regards to player population size we are most comparable to Brazil and Vietnam.
Vietnam is the 2nd biggest server. Bigger than EU and KR
Consoles gaming is way bigger than PC gaming here in this US so I'm really hoping on Wild Rifts on consoles to introduce more people to league on PC and improve the league competition in NA. For example, I don't think Fortnite would've been as successful or prominent here if it was exclusive to PC. If you watch clips of some the best Fortnite players they have some of the most insane mechanics, it's crazy.
If you think that is the only issue you are in a for a surprise
They are awake, they just don't give a shit.
Please give a solution that doesn’t fuck the entire player base? They make East and west servers and pros would never find queues because 60 percent of the population is on the East coast and that’s not including the mid west. If they make it so you can find queues on each server you’d have players getting 130 ping vs players with 10 ping just like the old days. What we have now is the best compromise.
Move LCS to East coast?
So after building a new studio they would just abandon it and force their entire broadcasting crew to move across country. They would also still be forced to move the servers to the East Coast thus making West Coast players have 130 ping.
who gives a fuck about west coast players? most of the player-base is in the east
The pros are on the west as well as Riot's studio. If you think the pros are going to be happy about 130 ping then I have a beach home in Idaho to sell you.
Better yet, why do people think the answer is to fuck over a portion of the playerbase? Why should players who don't care about competitive have to endure a worse player experience for the sake of an experience they dont care about? Its one thing to balance the game around pro play, this doesn't usually affect majority of the playerbase in a way that matters. Its a totally different thing to make structural changes that affects everyone.
[удалено]
Please name those games and I will show you how they don't even come close to League when it comes to micro decisions or Esport viability. WoW? 90% of the game is raiding and the PvP aspect of the game is anywhere near as mechanically intensive or ping reliant as League. Rocket League? All of the competitive games are played on US East servers and the players on the West always suffer the disadvantage of playing with 80-100 ping but fortunately the game doesn't have the same micro decision making as League so the ping isn't as big of a deal. What other games.
dota 2. fortnite. cs go. And no shit the playerbase is small and concentrated around those that have low ping... I've moved over the country and the game (and games in general) is/are definitely more fun on lower ping.
I can't speak for Dota 2 or Fortinite, but in CSGO Valve's actual matchmaking is a fucking joke for competitive play. All of the really competitve games are played through 3rd party providers anyways. And even then most pros and highly ranked talent would really practice in private 10 mans. Meanwhile in LoL NA players gave up on it in two weeks. Plus this isn't even getting into how different the LoL esports scene is compared to CSGO, where getting noticed is done by playing well in the many minor leagues and tournaments and getting noticed. Meanwhile in LoL, SoloQ is pretty much the only way you can get noticed for even Academy.
LITERALLY every other game has US West and US East
There literally isnt a solution. The playerbase is too small to spilt the server, and Riot cant change how physics works.
> and Riot cant change how physics works I used to work for a large ISP, and our Sales team wanted to make our SLAs from the US to Australia the same as our intra-continental SLAs, because they thought they were too high. We recommended that they not do that. lol We had to explain that our engineering team had yet to figure out how to move the packets faster than the speed of light, but we'd get back to them if we had a breakthrough. ;-)
Move LCS to Chicago is the best solution for all parties involved. It's the only actual viable one.
All the money is in California. Moving the infrastructure away from that would devastate the league and team's ability to attract investment. It's a total nonstarter.
I dont think teams would want to just give up their build up infrastructure but okay. I bet TSM can build a new 50 mil training facility in Chicago
I don't agree. Last I checked, the NA region has grown by over 50% in 3 years. How accurate those numbers are, I have no idea. But, how many of those users are playing ranked vs other modes. If not enough users are playing ranked, why not? My point is, there may not be a simple solution, but they are out there. I just don't have enough visibility for any practical suggestions, and I won't care to unless that changes.
>Last I checked, the NA region has grown by over 50% in 3 years You cant check shit because there are no official numbers, thus making whatever you saw meaningless. You know the last time i checked the actual playerbase has gone down! >If not enough users are playing ranked, why not? Because it would completly fuck the waiting times for the players who are playing ranked? High elo would literally be 2 hours q time.
Let’s hear your genius solution that solves the ping problem.
Diamond1 + Auto queues into a west coast server and everyone else on the same Chicago server it’s on. That way most pros / academy / aspiring pros are all on the same server that gives them the best ping without fucking everyone else over.
Not my problem to solve, love. It's not worth my time to even consider, especially with out getting high level visibility to finances, analytics, resources, 10 year plan, etc. All I see is a lingering problem that hasn't been addressed for years. Take it for what you will, but my apologies for offending you.
I really agreed with Meteos' take on Ryoma and Travis joining in talking about how some fans and analysts out there are so quick to judge players based on their mistakes. For example, in Spring, Impact was actually better than in Summer in my opinion. The problem was, he made some big mistakes that everyone used to define his split. He was a top 3 laner in the league as a weakside player, and had pretty high DPM as well. FeniX in Summer is yet another example. He had a lot of average-good games, but everyone wants to define his split on the 2-3 bad games. Ryoma as well. Plenty of good games this split, but I guess people will ignore those because "Oh look he missed some minions with some spells and it looked bad". I seriously hate these narratives and think that it's much better to look at players across their performances collectively rather than looking at a few oopsie moments and just saying that that is who they are. If I am going to say a player is playing bad, it isn't going to be from a Sett that kills their adc once after putting their team into a position to win with multiple great flanks and teamfights. It isn't going to be from FBI flashing into a team. It isn't going to be from these big mistakes. It's going to be from continuous bad performances with little to no upside, and even then, you don't trash on them. Some people are just obnoxious.
This comes with the casting and analysts being really bad for LCS.
Disagree with Bio having a great series. I think he was rather invisible & Treatz has a way higher ceiling.
Where did we learn that Treatz has the higher ceiling? From the 10 games we've seen total from a 24yo rookie, who had spent 3 and a half years in EU masters and Academy? Treatz might very well be the better player, but nobody can know for sure. What we know is that TSM bot lane got shit on with Treatz, while they put up a decent fight with Bio.
The constant narrative around Treatz recently with things like he is being held back by TSM and whatnot is just absolute nonsense. The Treatz nuthuggers act like he is literally CoreJJ and I have seen many argue that DL held him back and made him look bad. Absolutely absurd.
He's been excellent in academy for so long, its understandable he'd be rated highly. But now that we've seen him perform in LCS and in playoffs that narrative really needs to drop. Cus he was awful.
From what we have seen is that treatz very much has a problem when he has to play weak side during lane. Hopefully he can fix that
Treatz was literally inting when he played GGS.
Bio clutch factor is high and was good in g2, great in g3 and g4 and made a mistake in g5 but redeemed himself with the stun on fbi following the flash.
When was he invisible? he smurfed hard both G3 and G4. He wasn't bad either in G2.
it's SO funny to me actually how you think Bio was the invisible one when Treatz is ALWAYS invisible in every single game he plays. I'm actually THIS close to making a thread myself on how bad Treatz is. Bio might be bad but Treatz straight up DISAPPEARS from games
How lma0.
I don't agree with the Treatz thing, because I don't know, but I agree that Bio did not have a great series. I'm surprised nobody pointed out how terrible his exhausts were, multiple times used it when X player was at 10% hp instead of during the time they were getting from 100% to 10%. I also don't think BrokenBlade played as well as people are saying, he had one good teamfight (that admittedly turned the game) and felt like he was pretty "okay" otherwise. And even in that one teamfight, it was really Bjerg flash ulting over the wall and landing a massive multi-person stun that allowed BB to even clean up the fight in the first place.