This game was crazy, it's like two elite fighters facing off, starting the game with impeccable motions and perfect strategy, but as the game goes on and they punch each other in the face repeatedly, you can definitely see the board exploding. Units start to be out of position, the armies barely holding together, and in the end nobody even knows what's happening.
This game's level is frackin insane ! GG to both players. Talose, man, being able to keep up and win the game almost without recon ! Vincarious front shift well and 99% of the player would've lost to those play.
What a wild match. Well played by both players, I can see how they made it this far into Smacky cup. Spoilers: When a tournament match reaches the time limit, determining the winner is a bit more objective than "who do I think would have won if the game continued to play out?" That only matters if someone is about to take an income lead and the other player can't stop it. Unless one player has an overwhelming advantage at the end of the game, the judges will calculate how many times each player started their turn with income, value, or unit count leads to determine who played better throughout the entire match. This game was probably close enough at the end to have the entire match evaluated.
First of all, incredible game, definitely a banger! Second of all, I love how Deejus mind can go from being completely analytical to being completely hilarious in an instant. Look at 45:17, Deejus is explaining how Vincarius should not go for the property as Talose as an infantry advantage due to fighting on his strong side and a few second later : “Boonga! Banga! Where is ze ricky? Get ze ricky. Come on Talose, get ze ricky. No ricky. Puerto Rico.” That is pure entertainment right there!
I have to disagree with these tie breaker rules. There must be an objective number in some form. These rules put a black eye or bad taste in games that are phenomenal.
There isn't, though. Income is obviously tied, and who is ahead on army value? Whoever played the last turn before day limit, which is ALWAYS player 2. That is not to say there are no alternatives, for example live game tiebreaks could be a solution.
@@aa01blue38 I admit I don't have the answers. Who knows maybe they can apply some rocket science mathematics, clearly having a committee to determine who is the winner is far from the best route. Hopefully those smarter than me can figure it out.
@@aa01blue38 just thinking, I would rather this game be decided by rock, paper, scissors in a tie (I'm keeping it simple). At least the players have a form of control. It's unorthodox for sure, maybe not the best option, but at least it's better than this "committee decides". This isn't a real world sport that needs judges.
@@fantasystar7777 Isn't boxing's referee breaking ties with also decisions ? Also rock paper scissor is too luck based to be acceptable in tournament even player can choose one of them and map comitees judge based on objective values first then create a new match if there isn't different objective values (Income or game's default automatic tiebreaker then Unit count, Kill/Death Ratio, Income generated, is one of the player can win in 1-3 turn(s) like uninterruptable HQ cap or Lab cap if HQ replaced by Lab ? (basically mate-in-1 or guranteed mate-in-x but in advance wars instead chess), if all of those's answer is no / both players is the same then the map comitee just create a new match with probably same setting or less stalematey setting like live format), all of those variable are controllable by the players with enough skill unless it's Mixed-Base Fog or the game is lottery like playing with/against luck COs or gamechanging luck rolls.
Extra-ordinarily crazy and complex game by two fast players using two fast COs. ⚡⚡⚡ Great to see Koal seeing some use, and what amazed me the most is the inversion of the usual CO Power dynamics: Talose as Koal seemed to spam his basic more, while Vincy-winky as Adder went for more SCOPs that usual, even though normally it's very much the other way around.
When the match ended talose did look to be in the best position. However, if they made the rule be 35 days for capture then surely they could instead have a 40 day limit and the last 5 days are used to settle a draw - be that by capture or by other means such as unit value, k/d, damage dealt, unit count... after that go for a judges decision. Matches can't go on forever obviously, but having a draw be a win is not very satisfying.
I feel this is an ongoing problem of awbw not having a sudden-death mode and neither a judge call. Once it's done, it's done. Every tournament is the same thing. Would be interesting something like "funds are cut after x day", or, "can't build more units", "next cap wins" and so on. Of course, people might say that it would favour some COs, but in the end, it's a game. Being satisfying is part of it, can't be all technical.
That was a lot of fun. Talose recognized that he had to shift to the defensive on his weak side much earlier then Vin did, but he also made the mistake of pushing his main attack beyond it's culminating point, rather then frontshifting in time. I feel like he defeated Vin's frontshift because he had a superpower ready, thus allowing him to plug the holes extremely quickly, plus a slightly better tactical instinct. Adder had already used his power, and therefore didn't have a timely answer to that. Very impressive by both players.
I'm glad I actually forgot the result despite watching Humita's recent analysis of this exact match. Will be interesting to see how the Deej looks at it. :D
your videos are literally too good. I tend to see your upload and save watching it for way later for when the time is right, pushing my viewing experience back by days or even weeks. If everyone acted like me you'd get no views xd
I feel that letting the community decide on the winner in the case of a tied match isn't necessarily a bad idea. On the one hand, it's true that feuds and rivalries may muddle the discussion and force some unfair rulings, but on the other hand the alternatives (playing for K:D, Unit value, funds generated etc.) would probably just encourage some really unfun playstyles, like having both players build up indefinitely with income parity to avoid making any mistake and basically running the clock until the last few turns. There are also a lot of COs that benefit from being on the losing side, like global damage COs or Eagle, so having an "objective" metric for tie-breaking would inevitably cause a huge shift in the tier lists depending on the mode.
I think the rule is horroble to let the player win, who "seems to be winning". Makes any struggle at the end of a match pretty useless... Make a live ä-match to determine who moves on, that would be a lot more fun
Isn't that kind of how boxing works? I don't follow it at all but I'm pretty sure I've heard they basically have panels of judges who decide who wins each round.