Jump to content

If the ranked elo system is to change, please do NOT change it to the previous system


Talon_strikes

Recommended Posts

I've noticed something extremely concerning that some people have suggested ever since the brokenness of ranked became virtually the sole focus of the PvP forum since last year, and that is is that ranked needs to go back to the previous matchmaking system. PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.

 

When I used to play, I remember always getting shafted because it would put the lower rated tank, lower rated healer and lower rated DPS on one team while the other team had the higher rated ones. It's was virtually impossible to climb under that matchmaking, especially if your placements were ****. If your toon got rated into elo hell, it was most likely going to stay there.

 

While I'm for other changes that have been proposed (such as not putting all Mercs on 1 team and all Sorcs on the other), reverting to the previous matchmaking system of putting all the lower elo characters against the higher elo ones would be a huge mistake.

 

Just scrap the easily and heavily manipulated elo system altogether and put in the more popular win points-based system that has been proposed or something similar to it.

Edited by Talon_strikes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, the old system rewarded you a lot if you were a new rated player. If you were the low rated player, and won a match because you were genuinely better than high rated players, you could gain tremendous amounts of rating. Also, elo hell does not exist in this game. If you cannot climb out of a rating bracket, you most likely belong there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atleast in the old system I sometimes felt like the players on my team were around my level. Today I honestly cant remember ever being able to say that because if you had 16 players( imagine they are seeded) in the q the teams always seems to match up like this:

 

team 1: 1,8,9,16 Vs team 2: 2,7,10,15

 

team 3: 3,6,11,14 vs team 4: 4,5,12,13

 

 

I wish it would make teams like this:

 

 

team 1: 1,4,5,8 vs team 2: 2,3,6,7

 

team 3: 9,12,13,16 vs team 4: 10,11,14,15

 

 

 

Mixing the lower 8 players with the higher 8 players just sucks. Right now, it seems like you are guaranteed to never a have team of similar skill, its always a mix of bad and good. So I would definitely prefer the old system so I can atleast have more quality games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they get rid of cross-role backfilling and remove mats, I have the opinion that this solo ranked queue system would be somewhat better than the one from previous seasons.

 

This is due in part to them eliminating a lot of the previous issues with solos such as factional imbalance, ease of map hacking, backfilling for elo, server elo transfer, etc... but also this is due to the fact that they redesigned how the system paired players by elo.

 

 

 

In the previous system the players were matched in a general pattern of 1st highest rated with 3rd highest 5th and 7th, vs 2cd and 4th, 6th, 8th (when players queue relative to others timing wise mattered and still does as it can shift queue position, but that seemed to be the general pattern). Highest dps in queue most often got paired with highest tank, highest healer, or both. 2cd highest dps was almost always on the opposing team from the highest dps with the lower rated tank and heals as well as dps.

 

This design works fine generally if there is a sufficient population as the lower average team had higher potential for gaining elo, but once the queue becomes very unbalanced elo or skill wise it often favors the higher rated team, even though the higher average team got less elo from a win. The 2cd highest dps's team in certain situations could be consistently at a statistical disadvantage, especially in tank healer combo situations with great skill disparity between teams.

 

"The rule of #2" "Curse of 2cd dps in queue" was for sure a thing, and was known by quite a few Top3/T1 level players as you could isolate elos and predict potential matches with a decent degree of reliability in higher tiers.

 

 

 

This new system seems to have the opposite effect and punish the higher rated players, with 2 or so of the highest dps in queue + 2 of the lowest vs an average team, with the lowest elo players you have to carry that are often mat farmers being a main problem.

 

While you can still get to the top by almost sheer luck in solos due to all the RNG, most of those past 1.4 to 1.5k+ are good players as you have to carry rather hard past that point. I find the "highest rateds having to carry hard fighting tooth and nail" type system better than the "rich are somewhat more likely to get richer" type system that the other could often be.

 

 

 

With that being said there is far too much RNG now with mats, cross-role backfilling, and just general bad players for either system at all to be as valid as the roughly 1st-9th seasons in solos... these issues should be addressed before any system can be reliably implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed something extremely concerning that some people have suggested ever since the brokenness of ranked became virtually the sole focus of the PvP forum since last year, and that is is that ranked needs to go back to the previous matchmaking system. PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.

 

When I used to play, I remember always getting shafted because it would put the lower rated tank, lower rated healer and lower rated DPS on one team while the other team had the higher rated ones. It's was virtually impossible to climb under that matchmaking, especially if your placements were ****. If your toon got rated into elo hell, it was most likely going to stay there.

 

While I'm for other changes that have been proposed (such as not putting all Mercs on 1 team and all Sorcs on the other), reverting to the previous matchmaking system of putting all the lower elo characters against the higher elo ones would be a huge mistake.

 

Just scrap the easily and heavily manipulated elo system altogether and put in the more popular win points-based system that has been proposed or something similar to it.

 

No, current system in all matters is UNFAIR.Now If you dont climb to top spots during first 2 weeks you wont be able to do it up to the end of season. Current system just carrying bad players by matching highrated skilled players with absolute garbage and giving bad players with low elo middle-rated team mates. If you couldn't reach high elo with previous system which was random to elo it means you arent good enough and require carry from the system. Thats all

Edited by bladech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lost everything on my tank yesterday! Idk why if i have 1600 elo i must carry 3 noobs in my team? against 4 1500 rated players? Even if i lost 100 rating the system doesnt stop trolling me!

Stats:

https://gyazo.com/89fda3d4b27673ed43ebd91bd299fd0b

https://gyazo.com/312429764a2953d11b22e69d7a30be26

https://gyazo.com/1e7163b1d5829374bb9eccf601a75ba4

https://gyazo.com/3b2b120b1f9207cb1e812ec79fdc313b

Result:

https://gyazo.com/7e7db93ab817caec2872bcddd8c96a6c

Edited by mishin_max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, current system in all matters is UNFAIR.Now If you dont climb to top spots during first 2 weeks you wont be able to do it up to the end of season. Current system just carrying bad players by matching highrated skilled players with absolute garbage and giving bad players with low elo middle-rated team mates. If you couldn't reach high elo with previous system which was random to elo it means you arent good enough and require carry from the system. Thats all

 

Flawed logic in both cases...

 

In previous system the game matched players of similar ratings and formed a group and then looked for whats' left in que and made the second group. That is why you often saw top players in the same group a lot of times vs low rated garbage resulting in gank fests and 2k+ ratings on the leaderboards very early in SR.

 

So in that system if you failed to get high rating in the 1st two weeks it was pretty much over as you were constantly matched with low level ppl.

 

In this system so you say high rated players are put in trash groups and if you don't get top stop after 2 weeks it's over ? Well the two systems sound very similar with the only difference that "skilled'' players can show how skilled they are by carrying bad players. Oh but you can't carry that ? Ofc you can't... How can you carry the jugg that dies in 10 seconds and you get him 3 times in a row ?

 

BOTH systems matched players based on their rating and that's bad in both cases. Matching should be random NOT based on rating and elo gain/loss should be fixed and not based on other groups rating and bottom line... This system has to go as you are punished way too much for losing and we need points system instead that rewards winning more than losing. BUt.. of course the current people are against that as they wouldn't be able to get top 10 spots in SR out of nowhere with 10 wins... or 15 wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

you can loose that much in 1 game?:D thats kinda ****ed up

 

wouldnt it be better if you would get a set amount of points for a lost game but if youre low rank you get more points for a win and with high rank you get less points for a win. so that you need to win more then you loose in order to maintain youre rank but that a couple of losses dont completely ruin youre rank.

 

I dont play much ranked but i think it would be aslo good to gain points (or atleast dont loose that much) for a close game if you win 1 round for example. I cant say that for sure but i allways lost the same amount no matter what happened in the game.

Edited by Bilch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you can still get to the top by almost sheer luck in solos due to all the RNG, most of those past 1.4 to 1.5k+ are good players as you have to carry rather hard past that point. I find the "highest rateds having to carry hard fighting tooth and nail" type system better than the "rich are somewhat more likely to get richer" type system that the other could often be.

 

This is the correct answer. The old system actively favored high rated players. The new system is neutral; it simply creates the fairest match up possible based on the elo of everyone in the queue. There is no "punishment" of high rated players. Are high rated players put in games that are extremely difficult to win? Yes. Is that ideal? No, but due to the low population queueing, it is literally the only fair way to sort the queue, assuming we stick with the elo system.

 

No, current system in all matters is UNFAIR.Now If you dont climb to top spots during first 2 weeks you wont be able to do it up to the end of season. Current system just carrying bad players by matching highrated skilled players with absolute garbage and giving bad players with low elo middle-rated team mates. If you couldn't reach high elo with previous system which was random to elo it means you arent good enough and require carry from the system. Thats all

 

More babble from an admitted wintrader.

 

Mixing the lower 8 players with the higher 8 players just sucks. Right now, it seems like you are guaranteed to never a have team of similar skill, its always a mix of bad and good. So I would definitely prefer the old system so I can atleast have more quality games.

 

How shocking. You'd prefer the old system that consistently stacked the team in your favor. Games always seem of higher "quality" when you're always winning. It's kind of amazing that as soon as the teams are actually balanced fairly, you barely queue or have any success in ranked anymore.

Edited by JediMasterAlex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How shocking. You'd prefer the old system that consistently stacked the team in your favor. Games always seem of higher "quality" when you're always winning. It's kind of amazing that as soon as the teams are actually balanced fairly, you barely queue or have any success in ranked anymore.

 

 

Quality of a match has nothing to do with the result. You clearly misunderstood the whole point of my previous post In which I explained why I preferred the old system.

 

In regards to the fairness of the balance of teams, I do agree in the sense that there are way less Over stacked good ranked players teams vs teams where none of them should be playing ranked. Winning those games are not fun at all since I often had to wait north of 30 minutes for that 1 game just to get +3 ish rating.. It felt way too often like a waste of my time. The only bright side is that I sometimes had good quality matches in which I had lots of fun and its for those games that I queue for solo ranked.

 

In this new system, ive had ZERO high quality games so far because of how it seems to make the teams. I value more the opportunity of having a high quality game over the fairness. As a high level pvper, I do not want to pvp with people who have no clue what they are doing in RANKED. I do not like having low quality games, they are a waste of time for me.

 

So yes, I do not queue up for solo ranked as much as I used too. The quality of games are one of the big reasons for it. But its not the only reason. In regards to my success in ranked, I have managed to make the front page in All 4 seasons that I set that as my goal. I made top 3 one other time without being on the front page, but that season I did not make making the front page my goal. So yeah my Success can speak for itself.

 

 

I have no clue who you are, how long you've been playing this game and/or whether I would consider you to be good at what ever you main. All I can say about ranked now, is that the amount of high level pvpers are far less today than it was in the first few seasons. The amount of players who have improved enough to join that high caliber group of players from my standards has not replaced the amount of high caliber players that have left. There is a reason why after each season the general trend of value of being "top 3" goes down and down. Maybe and hopefully this will change someday because I love the pvp in this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I value more the opportunity of having a high quality game over the fairness. As a high level pvper, I do not want to pvp with people who have no clue what they are doing in RANKED. I do not like having low quality games, they are a waste of time for me.

 

If that is actually true, then you should be embracing the current system like I am, because the current system is far more likely to create balanced games than the previous one. This is not a complicated issue.

 

So yes, I do not queue up for solo ranked as much as I used too. The quality of games are one of the big reasons for it. But its not the only reason. In regards to my success in ranked, I have managed to make the front page in All 4 seasons that I set that as my goal. I made top 3 one other time without being on the front page, but that season I did not make making the front page my goal. So yeah my Success can speak for itself.

 

You aren't having success anymore, because you aren't queueing, most likely because you aren't getting on stacked teams anymore. That is why the games feel worse to you. You are deluding yourself if you think it's some pure, competitive desire for great games.

 

I have no clue who you are, how long you've been playing this game and/or whether I would consider you to be good at what ever you main. All I can say about ranked now, is that the amount of high level pvpers are far less today than it was in the first few seasons. The amount of players who have improved enough to join that high caliber group of players from my standards has not replaced the amount of high caliber players that have left. There is a reason why after each season the general trend of value of being "top 3" goes down and down. Maybe and hopefully this will change someday because I love the pvp in this game.

 

The population as a whole has gone down, as has the population that queues ranked. So naturally there are less good ranked players overall. But the proportion of good players to bad ones is probably about the same. I played ranked in season 1, where there was the most participation and competition, and I was Tier 5 (the highest tier). There is not nearly as big a difference between then and now as you are implying. This is still just button-mashing mmo pvp at the end of the day.

Edited by JediMasterAlex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is actually true, then you should be embracing the current system like I am, because the current system is far more likely to create balanced games than the previous one. This is not a complicated issue.

 

 

 

You aren't having success anymore, because you aren't queueing, most likely because you aren't getting on stacked teams anymore. That is why the games feel worse to you. You are deluding yourself if you think it's some pure, competitive desire for great games.

 

 

 

The population as a whole has gone down, as has the population that queues ranked. So naturally there are less good ranked players overall. But the proportion of good players to bad ones is probably about the same. I played ranked in season 1, where there was the most participation and competition, and I was Tier 5 (the highest tier). There is not nearly as big a difference between then and now as you are implying. This is still just button-mashing mmo pvp at the end of the day.

 

Calm down with the accusations bud. Zurules has played for a long time... he knows what hes doing, and I doubt he has such delusions.

 

From doing ranked on and off pretty much every season to varying degrees on a variety of servers (mostly solos after the first 2 seasons), I can certainly attest to there being much better game quality on average in past seasons before 10.

 

Season 1-9 in solos for the most part had some of the most competitive games and the most potential for you to actually be able to climb due to individual skill. (There was of course RNG to varying degrees and many compiling problems with the system in past seasons, and it varied from server to server, but overall it was a much better environment for climbing).

 

The main problems after the first 9 seasons can likely be attributed to them adding mats and components to encourage more participation in solos towards the middle of season 9 IIRC.

 

In previous seasons for the most part, most players in solos at least had a baseline understanding of what they were doing, allowing for teams with the most hypothetical skill to win.

 

With the addition of mats/comps farmers that have little to no knowledge of what they are doing being added to the queue in vast quantities, the sheer lack of "skill" became the determining factor in games, not the most "skill". The ever dwindling lack of good players in ranked can in large part be attributed to ones skill no longer influencing the outcome of games.

 

Both the previous system and this one would both work, perhaps this one better... but none of them will work how most players would want them to work unless there is a baseline bar for entry and/or a removal of mat/component incentives.

Edited by MandoMetal
blah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Season 1-9 in solos for the most part had some of the most competitive games and the most potential for you to actually be able to climb due to individual skill. (There was of course RNG to varying degrees and many compiling problems with the system in past seasons, and it varied from server to server, but overall it was a much better environment for climbing).

 

You are making my point for me. Yes, it was better for climbing...because it frequently stacked teams in favor of the highest rated players. Both myself and others have explained how this worked. It amazes me that some people still find this concept difficult to understand. The ranked elo system is not designed to help you climb; it is designed to create fair match ups and then raise or lower your elo based on the outcome. The current system is creating the fairest match ups possible, unlike the old system. This leads players like you and Zurules to think the matches are lower in quality, because you are used to simply getting put on stacked teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making my point for me. Yes, it was better for climbing...because it frequently stacked teams in favor of the highest rated players. Both myself and others have explained how this worked. It amazes me that some people still find this concept difficult to understand. The ranked elo system is not designed to help you climb; it is designed to create fair match ups and then raise or lower your elo based on the outcome. The current system is creating the fairest match ups possible, unlike the old system. This leads players like you and Zurules to think the matches are lower in quality, because you are used to simply getting put on stacked teams.

 

 

I'll give it one last shot to try and explain to you what is important to me. When I talk about quality matches, I mean put the 8 best players In the same game and make the fairest teams between those 8 players. Right now, this never happens. The system seems to put the worst players with the best players to help create more fairness (which is a good thing to aim for), but it absolutely does this with the cost of the quality of the match.

 

We want stacked teams vs stacked teams at the higher elo. In other words, we want to play with people at our supposed level and also vs people at that same level too. When your whole team is at similar level and vs that same level you often get high quality matches.

 

i'll give you an example: Take any game you want that you consider that has a clear way to determine who are the best in the world at that game. Let say that game is 4v4 based. Now, consider these two possibilities:

 

1) You have the top 8 players in the world for that game in the finals. team 1 had players ranked 1,4,5,8 and team 2 has players ranked 2,3,6,7.

 

2) In that same final, you replace the bottom 4 ranks (5,6,7,8) with celebrities© who have maybe very little experience playing this game and are not good at it. Team 1 is now: 1,4,C1,C2 Team 2 is now: 2,3,C3,C4

 

What I consider a HIGH QUALITY finals is clearly shown in ONE of these two options. If you still cant figure out which one I would prefer, then I seriously have no idea how to explain it too you.

 

For me, I value having HIGH QUALITY matches to have fun when I play solo ranked. Right now, with the current system, I have had ZERO fun games. I get more fun these days queuing solo for regs and hope to be against a good 4 man premade and beat them by doing the least amount of killing possible. I get a higher feeling of satisfaction doing that than playing ranked these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played ranked in season 1, where there was the most participation and competition, and I was Tier 5 (the highest tier).

 

 

Can you refresh my memory of what 5 tiers you are referring to? To my recollection there has never been 5 tiers of anything when it comes to any ranked season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give it one last shot to try and explain to you what is important to me. When I talk about quality matches, I mean put the 8 best players In the same game and make the fairest teams between those 8 players. Right now, this never happens. The system seems to put the worst players with the best players to help create more fairness (which is a good thing to aim for), but it absolutely does this with the cost of the quality of the match.

 

We want stacked teams vs stacked teams at the higher elo. In other words, we want to play with people at our supposed level and also vs people at that same level too. When your whole team is at similar level and vs that same level you often get high quality matches.

 

i'll give you an example: Take any game you want that you consider that has a clear way to determine who are the best in the world at that game. Let say that game is 4v4 based. Now, consider these two possibilities:

 

1) You have the top 8 players in the world for that game in the finals. team 1 had players ranked 1,4,5,8 and team 2 has players ranked 2,3,6,7.

 

2) In that same final, you replace the bottom 4 ranks (5,6,7,8) with celebrities© who have maybe very little experience playing this game and are not good at it. Team 1 is now: 1,4,C1,C2 Team 2 is now: 2,3,C3,C4

 

What I consider a HIGH QUALITY finals is clearly shown in ONE of these two options. If you still cant figure out which one I would prefer, then I seriously have no idea how to explain it too you.

 

For me, I value having HIGH QUALITY matches to have fun when I play solo ranked. Right now, with the current system, I have had ZERO fun games. I get more fun these days queuing solo for regs and hope to be against a good 4 man premade and beat them by doing the least amount of killing possible. I get a higher feeling of satisfaction doing that than playing ranked these days.

 

What you are describing here is different from what you were describing before. What you are complaining about is purely a population problem. Very frequently there are only about 10 people in queue, so it sorts 8 of those 10 into the fairest possible teams by elo. That does frequently lead to the highest rated player getting some bad players on their team. But that is simply the best the system can do based on the population. It's not as if the matchmaker purposely splits the best players into different games. When there are multiple games going, the matchmaker DOES create a higher elo game and a lower elo game. But usually there is just one game going at a time, so that's just not possible.

 

Can you refresh my memory of what 5 tiers you are referring to? To my recollection there has never been 5 tiers of anything when it comes to any ranked season.

 

http://www.swtor.com/blog/announcing-end-season-1-rewards

 

And you know, looking at the link, I guess they made a typo because there are two tier 5s lol. I was 1500+, the highest tier, and have the rancor and title to prove it :)

Edited by JediMasterAlex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are describing here is different from what you were describing before. What you are complaining about is purely a population problem. Very frequently there are only about 10 people in queue, so it sorts 8 of those 10 into the fairest possible teams by elo. That does frequently lead to the highest rated player getting some bad players on their team. But that is simply the best the system can do based on the population. It's not as if the matchmaker purposely splits the best players into different games. When there are multiple games going, the matchmaker DOES create a higher elo game and a lower elo game. But usually there is just one game going at a time, so that's just not possible.

 

 

 

http://www.swtor.com/blog/announcing-end-season-1-rewards

 

And you know, looking at the link, I guess they made a typo because there are two tier 5s lol. I was 1500+, the highest tier, and have the rancor and title to prove it :)

 

 

Population issues for sure is part of the problem. As for there only being 1 game at a time going on most of the time i'll have to take your word on it. The few games ive played this season there were atleast 3-4 games going on at the same time. Perhaps there were not even 8 good players in the queue at those times so it would be impossible to get a high quality game. I can just go on my own experience of play and it was not fun at all which is why I rarely play ranked anymore. Maybe it is impossible to have what I consider a high quality match to my standards because there is never 8 players of that caliber even in the queue at the same time anymore. The end result is still the same for me, ranked is no longer fun.

 

 

Wow there actually was 5 tiers back then. Always figured it was 3. thank for sharing the article.

 

Getting the rancor from season 1 does not necessarily mean you were very good compared to the best players. There were about 1.3k characters that got the rancor back then (im guessing maybe 700 different players?) The different between the 700th player and the 100th player was still very significant. I don't know what your rating was back then, but I would not use simply having it as an indicator that you were necessary good. I'd be proud to say that you own one of the better looking and exclusive mounts when talking about the season 1 rancor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Population issues for sure is part of the problem. As for there only being 1 game at a time going on most of the time i'll have to take your word on it. The few games ive played this season there were atleast 3-4 games going on at the same time. Perhaps there were not even 8 good players in the queue at those times so it would be impossible to get a high quality game. I can just go on my own experience of play and it was not fun at all which is why I rarely play ranked anymore. Maybe it is impossible to have what I consider a high quality match to my standards because there is never 8 players of that caliber even in the queue at the same time anymore. The end result is still the same for me, ranked is no longer fun.

 

 

Wow there actually was 5 tiers back then. Always figured it was 3. thank for sharing the article.

 

Getting the rancor from season 1 does not necessarily mean you were very good compared to the best players. There were about 1.3k characters that got the rancor back then (im guessing maybe 700 different players?) The different between the 700th player and the 100th player was still very significant. I don't know what your rating was back then, but I would not use simply having it as an indicator that you were necessary good. I'd be proud to say that you own one of the better looking and exclusive mounts when talking about the season 1 rancor.

 

Unlike you, I've never claimed to be a great player (as an aside, Zurules personally dubs himself a "PVP expert" in his guild note, so people understand the kind of person we're dealing with here). I just pointed to season one to show that I did indeed have experience playing back then, so I can credibly compare it to playing now.

 

There are still a lot of people queueing ranked at least as good as you. Plenty that are better. Once again, you are delusional if you think that you are somehow above the competition. Frankly, it's laughable.

 

As for 3-4 games at a time, yes that was the case in the beginning of the season. There were a lot more people queueing for the first few weeks, but then the participation tapered off, which is probably typical of every ranked season. Ranked doesn't even really pop on star forge until about 5pm, and there is usually only one game going at a time, sometimes two, quite rarely three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike you, I've never claimed to be a great player (as an aside, Zurules personally dubs himself a "PVP expert" in his guild note, so people understand the kind of person we're dealing with here). I just pointed to season one to show that I did indeed have experience playing back then, so I can credibly compare it to playing now.

 

There are still a lot of people queueing ranked at least as good as you. Plenty that are better. Once again, you are delusional if you think that you are somehow above the competition. Frankly, it's laughable.

 

 

I definitely do consider myself a pvp expert because of my experience and success playing with and against some of the best players who have played this game. The reason I have "PvP Expert" as my member note in my current guild is because my current guild is not pvp focused at all. If anyone has a questions about pvp, they know who to ask because of my note. If you don't like the fact that I offer to help people who have questions in regards to pvp, that's your problem.

 

 

It's great that you played back in season 1 My point is if you are one of the 700th player rather than one of the top 100. You cant really know the skill differences between what a top player is and what is not because you were not in the same brackets of play if you are on the lower range. Comparing In some degree the best players of back then to today, you need to have played in both the top players from both those times if you want any kind of credibility when comparing them. So what rating were you?

 

 

There has and always will be better players than me. I only play my main (shadow) to what I believe to be at about 85% of its potential. I'm a hybrid clicker and im not mechanically sound what so ever. I dont have my cc break, vanish, or my resilience keybound (my most important dcds). I also do not use any target of target modifiers for interrupts or taunts. Despite all this, I manage to beat many players who most people would consider superior than me because my greatest strengths are my strategies and knowledge to best utilise my class and spec even though I am mechanically inferior to win.

 

I have never claimed to be the best, just one of them. You can keep laughing at that fact all you want, my success speaks for itself.

Edited by Zurules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely do consider myself a pvp expert because of my experience and success playing with and against some of the best players who have played this game. The reason I have "PvP Expert" as my member note in my current guild is because my current guild is not pvp focused at all. If anyone has a questions about pvp, they know who to ask because of my note. If you don't like the fact that I offer to help people who have questions in regards to pvp, that's your problem.

 

Calling yourself a pvp expert reminds me of a certain president calling himself a great negotiator.

 

I manage to beat many players who most people would consider superior than me because my greatest strengths are my strategies and knowledge to best utilise my class and spec even though I am mechanically inferior to win.

 

Your lack of self awareness is kind of amazing. Not only is this statement arrogant and false, it's delusional. Your strategic superiority exists only in your head.

 

I have never claimed to be the best, just one of them. You can keep laughing at that fact all you want, my success speaks for itself.

 

I absolutely laugh at you thinking you're a great player, because I've actually seen you play. You are not nearly as good as you think you are, and that's an issue when that is the entire basis of your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling yourself a pvp expert reminds me of a certain president calling himself a great negotiator.

 

 

 

Your lack of self awareness is kind of amazing. Not only is this statement arrogant and false, it's delusional. Your strategic superiority exists only in your head.

 

 

 

I absolutely laugh at you thinking you're a great player, because I've actually seen you play. You are not nearly as good as you think you are, and that's an issue when that is the entire basis of your arguments.

 

"You are not nearly as good as you think you are"

Seems to be a common problem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your lack of self awareness is kind of amazing. Not only is this statement arrogant and false, it's delusional. Your strategic superiority exists only in your head.

 

 

 

I absolutely laugh at you thinking you're a great player, because I've actually seen you play. You are not nearly as good as you think you are, and that's an issue when that is the entire basis of your arguments.

 

 

I base my arguments on my successful experiences in ranked. In 8v8, solo and group ranked over the course of different seasons, especially the earlier ones when I had more time to play. Ironically, its my own self awareness that allows me to own my own weaknesses. This allows me to create my own play style that best suits me for how what I think is best to win. A good example of this is the 12/31/3 spec I created which almost every other shadow/sin started to use back in the season one era. The only other top shadow/assassin that didn't copy me was turrrican who went more defensively grabbing the 25% dr during battle readiness.

 

On the other hand, you try to discredit me with only your opinion. When I play, you have no clue what I am thinking just as I would not know what you are thinking. Arguing with just your opinion is worthless. You need to bring more to the table if you want your opinion to have any weight. I back up my opinion with my successful results. What can you bring to back up yours?

 

I have no clue who you are as a player ingame. But I have a strong gut feeling I would have a good laugh if I ever found out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, you try to discredit me with only your opinion. When I play, you have no clue what I am thinking just as I would not know what you are thinking. Arguing with just your opinion is worthless. You need to bring more to the table if you want your opinion to have any weight. I back up my opinion with my successful results. What can you bring to back up yours?

 

My opinion is based on actually seeing you play a bunch of times within the last few months, as opposed to the ancient history that you are citing. Plus, nothing about your results implies that you win due to your l33t strats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this really is him, I am actually disappointed and did not laugh. I was hoping it would atleast be someone who's name I would easily recognize but I only vaguely remember that name as being a dps sorc, that's pretty much it. Fairly certain I've never played him in group ranked ever either. I honestly remember that name more from regs then from solo queue. This is a very anti-climactic end to this =(

 

I've openly admitted in other threads that I didn't play seasons 2-9 because I wasn't playing the game during that 4 year period. So how would you know me? I only started playing again during season 10 when you basically stopped queueing. I also don't really play regs anymore. But honestly, I make no extraordinary claims about my performance, so I'm not sure why who I am is relevant lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...