Actually, as a last response to that, the term “platchat” only exists because elitist pieces of garbage want an easy way to belittle those who aren’t as good at the game.
It takes more effort to be kind and try to educate people I suppose, so why not be trash instead?
Your emotions are showing and that’s all I’ll say.
It does indeed anger me whenever people want to act all high and mighty because they’re good at a video game at a non-professional level
You’re showing no emotion at all, that’s all I’ll say
Honestly, I can only comment on the stuff I watch, but here you go:
Stylosa - Great for beginners and low-intermediate. Stylosa consistently hammers on pretty basic mistakes, if you watch him for a couple months I think you know what he has to say about everything before he says it, but I just like his energy. His videos are my go-to comfort food after a day of work.
Freedo (Your Overwatch) - Opinionated Egghead that I personally have high respect for, but is controversial. Would recommend him over Stylosa if you are Diamond or higher. I think of him as the Roger Ebert of OW critics… he doesn’t always get things exactly right but he is very methodical in sharing his thought process. Taken with a grain of salt, I think that a savvy watcher can pluck the roses from the thorns.
Jayne - Is amazing. His current series is just flat out must-watch both for educational and entertainment purposes. He doesn’t take any strong stances on balance and discusses heroes on their own merits instead of worrying about the Meta. A lot of his videos, very well produced match people of different ranks against each other, with great discussion from himself and guests about tactics. Probably the highest watchtime-to-education-to-entertainment-value ratio imaginable. Total recommend.
Anyone yelling about percentages or numbers: Can you link your sources for those numbers? Because AFAIK they officially went through rank distribution was years ago and referring those is irrelevant at the moment due to the whole dynamic of the playerbase being completely different. Not just on the size side of it, but especially on the skill side of it as players are much better nowadays than they were 3-4 years ago
Personally I think that calling masters players average is wrong, but calling diamond players average is not. That’s because I see bronze/silver ranks as negative ranks where you start because of fundamental issues like inexperience in gaming (or FPS games in general), bad setup, bad internet, complete lack of dedication, physical/mental hindrances and so on not to lump them all together. Basically it usually means that there’s something that’s not related to the gameplay itself that the player should fix or improve OR they hopped into ranked under level 100 while still being very inexperienced. The reasoning for this is that usually those with very steady setups, experience in gaming, eye for gaming and no physical/mental hindrances don’t reach these ranks. They start from gold and then start climbing upwards from there. If you start going up from here then the average rank will hit around diamond, which is very reasonable since low diamond is filled with completely opposites of those with great game sense but bad mechanical skills and vice versa. They’re unable to climb even higher because of being so polarized and/or because of lack of being able to play as a team. Both of these are rather standard player issues that aren’t that hard to fix
You hit the nail in the head, the whole channel is clickbait. 
Ayy at least we have something to do when waiting for those Q times.
This is a pretty big jump in conclusions man. There are people who play the game who are bad. And they aren’t bad due to lack of set up. Diamond up consists of top 20% of the playerbase. You can’t tell me 80% of the player base is in lower ranks due to poor setups.
How do so many people not understand what “average” means?
If you look at the comments people tried to call them out on it and YO just threw fits at them and called them names. Sad I used to like those guys.
He wasn’t talking about average as in better than 50% of everyone playing the game. “Average” level of skill is skewed by great players on the edge of bell curve.
Poor choice of words.
How do you look at ratings and determine who’s average? Do these statistics include inactive accounts?
Cause thats what other competitive forms of entertainment do. They go on ESPN and talk about how middle school and high school ball players are garbage and playing their respective sport completely wrong.
Nobody disagrees completely what they said its how they said it that was bad.
It is very elitist and create an unwelcoming community that will in the end possibly be the downfall for the game. Remember the “bad player” population makes up the largest part of the overwatch community and is the largest portion of its revenue. It might be wise to not completely alienate them. From a financial standpoint point.
I don’t have the answer to that… but I also think you’re taking the term too literally.
I would not consider Plat players average, even if they technically are. I would use a different word. I would consider Diamond players average, Masters slightly above average, & GM+ good/great. But that’s also because I have high expectations for my teammates having been GM. When I see Plat gameplay it’s pretty cringe, even Diamond can be tough to watch. (not rank shaming, but after over 1000 hours the mistakes I see are worthy of a facepalm)
No I’m not doing anything too much.
This is just being misleading or delusional.
That’s just being in denial.
That doesn’t change reality itself. The arrogance of some people, all that matters is your perspective, what you want.
It’s all what you feel, what you assume, how it seems to you.
What about what is really true?
That’s a meaningless word salad.
You just drop in statistics terms you’ve heard like “bell curve” in where it makes no sense. Are you hoping to persuade people with what sounds like a logical reason but isn’t?
Neither mean, mode, median nor any other statistical measure of “average” could include both Diamond and Masters.
It’s about context, which you’re purposefully ignoring. Why, I’m not sure.
You’re ignoring what is being said on purpose.
No… I don’t know if you’re playing dumb or actually don’t understand?
Compared to a top 500 player, I’m bad. Compared to a Gold player, I’m good.
You’re using the term average in a different context than is being used in the video.
What I’m saying is true.
Compared to a consistent GM/top 500/OWL player, I’m bad. Compared to players below my rank, I’m good. It has nothing to do with feelings.
It’s not as simple as “this rank is in a certain percentage of the playerbase, therefore it is average”
The guy you replied to gets it. You’re being too literal with the word average
Why not? If you rate players on a 1-10 scale, from incapable to gaming god, then best players will be 8-9, while diamonds like 4-5. That’s what matters. Not quantity of players.
Good example.
Like Pilt is saying, on a scale of 1-10 you would think 5 is average, but if GM/OWL players are 9-10 while being exponentially better than ranks below them, Diamond is probably about a 5 which is what I said I considered average.
Maybe this helped you understand Treb.
I think it depends on what your definition of above average is. If you’re talking just plain skill, then yes, I think diamond/masters players could be considered average. However, I guess it’s true that if you’re better than a good percentage of the playerbase, then it makes you above average.