Karaoke Man
Smash Apprentice
To be honest, I think it's silly to base someone's skill only off tournament results. Because it's trying to base a different set of skills, from different skills, for different players, with different capabilities.
With that being said, you may be able to to make an objective judgement of one's skill only from tournament results, but to have a complete judgement on it, you have to be somewhat subjective as well. In terms of measuring a player's abilities, it is impossible judging from only tournment results because whether or not people can actually attend the tourneys are THE primary factors of that judgement. I hope people aren't trying to say "So-and-so didn't attend this tournament, so the other guy must be sooo much better than me".
It's silly because it's not even comparing the players skill between each other; it's literally only comparing the quantity of the wins they have. Quality is taken into account, but to a much lesser extent. It's like comparing myself or any of the Yoshi's to Poltergust. Poltergust does have a bucket load of notable wins under his belt, but that doesn't mean that we can't beat him.
Yes, how close games are should be taken into account in my opinion, because that's directly seeing a visual comparision between the two types of skill. Tyrant for example does exceptionally well in his region and in general, but people don't know that I (MX) took him to game 3 at Apex 2012.
vs
pools . So like....because I'm not as known or that because of my area, I'm not able to attend as many tournies, that apparently means I'm automatcally a worse player than those that are able to.... LOL. llod (Peach player from MD/VA, I believe) beat Seagull in his first offline tourney in 2011 or 2012 and Joe practically never loses to "randoms".
and comparing then to someone who switched to
which ultimately is an unfair comparison. Not because they "suck" as players, but because they're mostly not even at the tournaments in the first place.
The game might not be as kickin' as it used to be, but if things like this aren't done, then yes; this game would probably be "dead". I'm just sayin'.
With that being said, you may be able to to make an objective judgement of one's skill only from tournament results, but to have a complete judgement on it, you have to be somewhat subjective as well. In terms of measuring a player's abilities, it is impossible judging from only tournment results because whether or not people can actually attend the tourneys are THE primary factors of that judgement. I hope people aren't trying to say "So-and-so didn't attend this tournament, so the other guy must be sooo much better than me".
It's silly because it's not even comparing the players skill between each other; it's literally only comparing the quantity of the wins they have. Quality is taken into account, but to a much lesser extent. It's like comparing myself or any of the Yoshi's to Poltergust. Poltergust does have a bucket load of notable wins under his belt, but that doesn't mean that we can't beat him.
Yes, how close games are should be taken into account in my opinion, because that's directly seeing a visual comparision between the two types of skill. Tyrant for example does exceptionally well in his region and in general, but people don't know that I (MX) took him to game 3 at Apex 2012.
It's like I said above, this is only based off of tournament wins and....and a comparison between people who stick with someone likeKind of dubious that we're ranking players in a dead game, but whatever, I'll play along:
Beyond(who I guess goes to Raptor by default), you really shouldn't bother listing players. The true low-tier heroes all either suck or don't play anymore (and in the face of overcentralization, who can blame to good ones for switching or leaving?).
The game might not be as kickin' as it used to be, but if things like this aren't done, then yes; this game would probably be "dead". I'm just sayin'.