Magnojez on the best-of-3 format: “The cost of a mistake is just too high.”

Magnojez: What’s the difference? Because in a bo3, you’re still playing individual maps anyway. Losing a map often leads to losing the game because you can’t play all three of your comfort maps. One of them will be the opponent’s pick, and it’s rare for a team to have six comfort maps—unless it’s a Tier 1 team, and that’s it. The cost of a mistake is just high, but the difference is that you don’t have time to get into a rhythm, and BO1 is more random—because if something doesn’t go according to plan in BO1, you’ve lost the game and it’s over. But in a best-of-three, you have a chance to make a comeback in the second or third game, because there’s always the factor that people can surprise you. They might win two pistol rounds, which would also give them a huge advantage, or there might be some random key round—because even though people obviously prepare and come up with new strategies, they can still surprise you, you can’t be ready for everything. That’s why a best-of-1 is more random than a best-of-3.

Magnojez: They have a pretty—I’d say—unique, somewhat distinctive style of play, because, as I understand it, Twistzz and enkay J come up with a lot of their own rounds. On certain maps, they might even be coming up with their own meta or thinking about something specific. Twistzz is a pretty experienced guy who’s taken on the captain’s role. He obviously has more enthusiasm at first, plus they have a new roster. The “honeymoon period” also sort of drives people to work harder, move more, and do things to build, so to speak, communication with each other and team spirit—the whole package.

Fierce: Even though it’s a best-of-3—like, there’s a safety net and all that *** [nonsense]—yeah, it’s not as risky as a best-of-1, not as random, but you can lose to anyone, even a team weaker than you, and, well, anything at all—you can even lose to yourself.