Ideally yes, however, when a good portion of people disagree with a logical response, no matter how systematically unified it is after a certain level of logical validation, you tend to have a much more complicated system than just logical or illogical. This moves more towards what people /want/ rather than what /is/.
1 Like
No it literally doesn’t, and that’s a rudimentary and common logical fallacy. The soundness of an argument has nothing to do with the person making it. If a grandmaster makes a claim and a silver makes the same claim, it is no more true because it was made by a GM and no less true because it was made by the silver. The argument and the supporting premises are either true or they’re not, or sound and not sound, regardless of who said it.
1 Like
Ummmm
I guess the skill of a player can serve some credibility towards whatever they are arguing. It depends.
But regardless of rank, everyone’s opinion should be considered valid.
1 Like
Then the majority of the community would lose freedom of speech and it would reward all the high rank players with giant egos who love bring others down by rank shaming.
There is also the difference between knowing how to do something and actually being able to do it.
Omg I couldn’t agree more!
People in masters acted like they needed to prove einstein’s theory of relativity to get there.
Want to know the real answer though? It’s just common sense, and a bit of game sense; A touch of mechanical skill if you’re playing an aim based hero.
Seriously though common sense carried me to diamond lul.
Like you said, it ain’t rocket science.
1 Like
Many coaches cannot play at the level of the players they coach, is their advice invalid?
5 Likes
Again, NO! A claim is either true or untrue, sound or unsound. It does not matter who made it. You judge the claim based on the premises that support it; it matters not AT ALL what the rank of the person is. This is logic 101.
I mean, I agree with you to an extent…
Like, obviously we’re gonna take more feedback about the game from an OWL player than from a bronze bottom 500 player.
We still take feedback from the bronze player though, but that would be more about “fun” than game balance. E.g if the bronze player doesn’t like playing OW because of hog and junkrat, devs might change them to be less annoying for the bronze player.
To an extent, yes. Anybody who is bronze should be seen with MILD skepticism. Anybody who is GM should be seen with a little more favor. BUT THIS SHOULD NOT RULE OVER THE ARGUEMENT IN LARGE. Also, for silver-masters, I don’t think that the arguement should really matter too much based on rank. Players of different skill gradients can have GOOD ideas of what the game is, and just not be good at the game.
You can’t “agree to an extent” because I’m referencing logic and argumentation itself. There is no disagreeing with it. To judge the soundness of a claim based on who’s saying it IS a logical fallacy. Only the content of what’s being said matters. The person making the claim is completely and 100% irrelevant in terms of the validity, soundness, and trustworthiness of the claim itself.
Exactly. It all depends on how the player views the game. That said, if the coach is in bronze, maybe they shouldn’t be coaching a top 500 player. OW very much lends itself to a strategic playstyle up until mid-diamond, where the emphasis on mechanics becomes higher; and even then, playing tanks or less skill heavy DPS and supports can get you to masters+. So obviously a coach should be landing somewhere around diamond AT THE LEAST.
Some coaches don’t even play the game. I think you’ve missed the point. You can advise or offer a perspective that’s valid even if you’re doing so from a purely objective point of view.
How can a coach offer useful information if they don’t even play the game? If they watch the game A LOT then I am sure that they can give good info, but if they watch the game a lot then they should be playing in high plat/low diamond based on game sense alone, even after only a little bit of time playing the game.
You can understand a game without playing it and know the numbers , possible strategies and map tactics simply through observed maps and data.
Coaches concentrate on what the players are doing wrong overall and try to identify the players weaknesses. They also formulate plans of attack and tactics. Imagine you playing starcraft, you have no idea how to pilot a tank… but you know what they do, where they should be and when they’re useless.
Actual playing is more about training your muscles to do things and retaining game knowledge.
In many many “sports” the coaches don’t actively play the game.
1 Like
There’s a lot more to climbing than simply knowing how the game works. Reaction time, communication, mechanical skill, performing under pressure, etc. are all skills required to climb that have absolutely 0 bearing on one’s understanding of how the game’s played.
In other words, you don’t need to be a top tier player to be able to reasonably look at and analyze what’s going on. This is why official analysts who are literally paid for by Blizzard aren’t all top tier players, they’re sometimes as low as gold, because they don’t need to play the game at a high level to look at things at a high level.
People always say “hindsight is 20/20” for a reason, because it’s much, much easier to look back and talk about what went wrong after you’ve had time to relax and think than it is actually performing in the middle of things.
^ Precisely this ^
If you have a valid argument, it’ll stand on its own regardless of rank. If you ever have to resort to checking someone’s profiles to try and make a point, you need to reconsider your own stance on the subject to begin with. People put waaay too much blind faith in high ranked players in assuming they both know better than you and have your best interests at heart.
2 Likes
And you would be wrong and committing a logical fallacy.
1 Like
Yep. “Secretly Overwatch is so unbelievably complex that one must have a 200 IQ to truly understand it…”
That’s really all it takes. Plus grouping up with one or two people who you can trust to play well and join you in the Voice Chat.
1 Like
Games, like this, are usually centered around the majority. The majority of players are pretty average at FPS games. They are almost always going to cater toward them if they can do so.
If 100 average players tell me they don’t like the feel of X character and one pro player tells me they are great, I’m going to go with the masses here… Especially if I were the developer of the game that relied on keeping more people playing to increase revenue.
Meanwhile Reith:
The double standards are AMAZING lmao
1 Like
It should when the basis for whatever claims you’re making are almost purely based on empirical evidence.
However first-hand experience is not a pre-requisite for criticism.