~Official Wartab Page~

[Ziggles]

Long, long time ago when Burgs weren't half as Godly as they are now

[olagaton]

Exactly, but to say skill correlates with rating is a terribly false statement.

It certainly does show skill -- the skill it takes to get a toon to 2000 rating, regardless of the means. The skill it takes to gain more rating than you lose. Whether or not you think that is a valid skill or not is up to you, but it is a display of skill nonetheless.

[Rogmar]

It certainly does show skill -- the skill it takes to get a toon to 2000 rating, regardless of the means. The skill it takes to gain more rating than you lose. Whether or not you think that is a valid skill or not is up to you, but it is a display of skill nonetheless.

No, because you could farm your rating off a 2nd account. And before you say that you're still able to be killed, you can farm within the safety of your own GV/Grams one-shots. That takes no skill, just money in real life.

Anyways, I'll rephrase. Skill in general is not dependent on rating.

[Illuminatus1379]

So, children, what we learned today is that you really can't judge a player's skill based upon their sig alone. Go roll a Creep/Freep on whichever server and fight against them. The 'Moors needs both (and more) kinds of players.

[RGilthanas]

The 'Moors needs both (and more) kinds of players.

Especially freeps.

The End.

[VoxImmortalis]

So, children, what we learned today is that you really can't judge a player's skill based upon their sig alone. Go roll a Creep/Freep on whichever server and fight against them. The 'Moors needs both (and more) kinds of players.

I agree.

[Kisra]

I agree.

Glad to see we're all on the same page.

Wouldn't see me below 5 stars with LS+Logout at my disposal, Bop.

[VoxImmortalis]

Glad to see we're all on the same page.

Wouldn't see me below 5 stars with LS+Logout at my disposal, Bop.

You wouldn't see me below 3.5 ish again after the age of the worg and CJ is over!
Here's my highest in SoM. Oh, and I gave ls log up for a bit...



My photoshop skills are amazing, I know.

[Stalak]

You wouldn't see me below 3.5 ish again after the age of the worg and CJ is over!
Here's my highest in SoM.



My photoshop skills are amazing, I know.

Bop... Weaksauce...

[VoxImmortalis]

Bop... Weaksauce...

Vent, now? WTB a stalak in the moors!

[olagaton]

No, because you could farm your rating off a 2nd account. And before you say that you're still able to be killed, you can farm within the safety of your own GV/Grams one-shots. That takes no skill, just money in real life.

Still takes skill to press buttons, albeit very little. Skill is skill, by definition. There are certainly different levels of skill involved, depending on how you gain your rating, but skill is definitely involved.

Anyways, I'll rephrase. Skill in general is not dependent on rating.

Sure it is. If a player is unable to be in the top tier of rating within his class, he is not as skilled as someone who has a higher rating. If the player was capable, why isn't he? Not motivated, not interested? Thus, he doesn't possess the skill to be motivated or interested in building his rating to be higher than his competition, within the same class. I could go on and on if you still aren't capable of understanding that skill, in some form or fashion, is very much dependent on rating.

[Illuminatus1379]

Skill is skill, by definition.

Really?

/words

[olagaton]

Really?

/words

I know....though it's not surprising that I actually had to include that in my statement, because some people still don't realize simple concepts like that.

[Rogmar]

Sure it is. If a player is unable to be in the top tier of rating within his class, he is not as skilled as someone who has a higher rating. If the player was capable, why isn't he? Not motivated, not interested? Thus, he doesn't possess the skill to be motivated or interested in building his rating to be higher than his competition, within the same class. I could go on and on if you still aren't capable of understanding that skill, in some form or fashion, is very much dependent on rating.

A reason for why a player might not attempt to push for a higher rating might be the objective of being more effective via staying in a fight for more kills. Which one requires more skill is in itself another debate.

I understand your argument, but the conclusion to be drawn is that Rating is dependent on Skill, not the other way around as you claim. Skill being dependent on Rating implies that a player is only as good as what his Rating is, when in fact, there are other factors that might be considered equal or even greater than Rating.

[olagaton]

A reason for why a player might not attempt to push for a higher rating might be the objective of being more effective via staying in a fight for more kills.

Using both scenarios, which player kills more than they die? A player who kills and gets away is more effective and efficient than a player who gets a few more kills, but results in their death.

Assume a player that stays in longer to get more kills averages an extra kill every 3 times he stays in, but he dies half of the time that he stays in longer.

Compare a player with 5000 kills, 5 deaths, to a player with 6665 kills, and 2500 deaths. Assuming both use the same skill sets, which player would you consider a more effective and more efficient player?

[TimmmmaaaaH]

Compare a player with 5000 kills, 5 deaths, to a player with 6665 kills, and 2500 deaths. Assuming both use the same skill sets, which player would you consider a more effective and more efficient player?

Regardless of who is more effective or efficient, I know which player I would rather play with.

[Rogmar]

Using both scenarios, which player kills more than they die? A player who kills and gets away is more effective and efficient than a player who gets a few more kills, but results in their death.

Assume a player that stays in longer to get more kills averages an extra kill every 3 times he stays in, but he dies half of the time that he stays in longer.

Compare a player with 5000 kills, 5 deaths, to a player with 6665 kills, and 2500 deaths. Assuming both use the same skill sets, which player would you consider a more effective and more efficient player?

Well now you're getting down to opinion. Obviously most would agree that a trade off of 1 kill to 2 deaths is inefficient. Some will argue that 1:1 is inefficient. Some will be on one extreme and argue that it doesn't matter how many kills you have, as long as you have as little deaths as possible (similar to your position). And on the other side, some will argue that as long as you're getting more kills than deaths, then you are an efficient player.

I wouldn't be able to comment on your scenario, because I don't know how each player obtained his deaths. The number of kills/deaths doesn't tell as much about a player as the way those numbers were acquired. Same could be said about Rating.

[timmyloo22546]

I wouldn't be able to comment on your scenario, because I don't know how each player obtained his deaths. The number of kills/deaths doesn't tell as much about a player as the way those numbers were acquired. Same could be said about Rating.

Very true. It is possible to have 10 deaths and have given out LESS renown/infamy even tho some other person might only have 1 death. As long as you are tagged by a freep/creep before you die it counts as a death, even tho npcs could of did 99% of the damage.

Also, if a ranger/troll does 100% damage to you it counts as a death even tho no renown/infamy is given out because it is a player session.

So really, it is flawed to argue "efficiency" by K/D ratio. It would make more sense to argue efficiency by renown given per infamy earned, or vis versa. But the stats don't capture that.

[olagaton]

I think it's safe to say that most players with 50 deaths have not received those deaths as a result of not giving away infamy or renown.

[THORlN_OAKENSHlElD]

I am rank 14 and have yet to get five stars. I must fail.

[Ziggles]

I am rank 14 and have yet to get five stars. I must fail.

back on bw?

[Swiftstrike]

I am rank 14 and have yet to get five stars. I must fail.

No worries. One more rank and then you will have nothing else to increase but rating

But then you will never be able to take advantage of the 5% star bonus.

[Grusk]

No worries. One more rank and then you will have nothing else to increase but rating

But then you will never be able to take advantage of the 5% star bonus.

10% right?

[Rogmar]

back on bw?

Bugged Sig. He's still failing on Meneldor. :/

[Ziggles]

Bugged Sig. He's still failing on Meneldor. :/

speaking of bugged sigs, i can't display my wargs because he has the ~ in his name. FIX ME.