I can’t speak for every case & I can’t even say that they maintained that rank. I’m also not claiming that they’re magically grasping interactions between heroes. But being very mechanically skilled can get you to masters, even with little game knowledge. If you can click heads you can win.
Like I said, not in every case, but in most cases it does. Most high rank players have put far more time into the game, which is how they attain a better understanding of the game & are able to climb using that knowledge.
Given all the stupid things I’ve seen high ranked players saying about stuff outside of their own specialization, I don’t see the correlation.
In some cases I even see them saying things about stuff inside their own specialization that sounds stupid because they are giving their opinions on the pro scenario (where both teams are expected to perform in a certain way), and many people take that as valid to ladder (where after a certain rank you can’t even group up and need to turn a bunch of wild cats into the semblance of a team). Eg, Sombra being “oppressive” or goats being “everywhere”.
Like I said… there are exceptions to every rule. There are high rank players with less understanding than lower ranked players… but as I said we are not talking about exceptions. In general, high rank players know more than low rank players.
I believe that ones that do know what they are talking about are the exceptions. That’s why the few that know game theory enough usually get recognized beyond their ability to play.
You don’t even need to look that far. Go to KarQ channel and watch any of those “tips for X against every hero” featuring someone that is known for playing that hero, and you’ll see a lot of good advice. Go search what those players talk about anything other than their own hero and you’ll facepalm every other minute.
Like people said above, there is a reason why every sports and e-sports team have coaches, and why the coaches are not required to be high ranked themselves. Playing well do not mean you are good at understanding game theory.
This is how plat chat works, for sure. Lets bla-bla-bla all around and size doesn’t matter. It matters and you know it, but you don’t have it. If US dollar would not be fortified with government value, nobody will trust dollar.
You misunderstood my entire argument…Literally my entire argument.
My point was (and still is) that you don’t need to base your opinions off your own in-game experience when you’re a low rank. Plenty of lower ranked people share more than credible opinions on Overwatch simply by keeping up-to-date with Overwatch news, OWL and the like, not to mention simply possessing general knowledge on game balance…A Grandmasters icon doesn’t miraculously unlock hidden truths about this game - All it unlocks, really, is an overinflated ego and a grand sense of elitism.
Overwatch is, as far as video games go, pretty simple. [Insert my “it’s not rocket science” comment here.] I’ll also insert what Nibelung said as they managed to explain my argument far more coherently:
I will open up a new argument too, Avensol…Who are you, and others like you, to say that even the experience of Low ELO players shouldn’t be taken into account at all? Wouldn’t you agree that the best Overwatch would be the Overwatch that operates well for all players, no matter their rank? Or does that take away the irresistible chance to condescend 95% of the playerbase…?
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/.
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.
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.
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.