{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/5/2017 9:32:31 PM
2
There's no skill in stomping players you should have never been matched against. If all 2.0 teams played against 2.0 teams then skill would be a factor.. But it's not. 2.0 teams get put against 0.5 teams.... that's not skill... that's a free win. All the way to the lighthouse.
English
-
Edited by Nijuka: 5/6/2017 3:12:17 AM@Lycan- You're aware that you just said because some are more skilled players than others that skill isn't involved? That's a contradiction If I've ever seen one.
-
Lol stop twisting my words into something I didn't say. If you beat a team on the same skill tier as you... Then your skill is what truly won that match. You couldn't derp around. You have to play seriously and focus. You have to earn the win. If you don't even have to try.... your skill didn't win the match. If you can screw around and not play seriously and blow the other team out then that's a team you should have never played. The skill gap was far too large and the match was a win before it even started.
-
I didn't twist your words only correcting you, what you're saying is contradiction. As a team of skilled players beating a lesser skilled team ( you're judging based on skill saying it's not based on skill) It's truly tested skill ( more of a challenge), it doesn't negate the fact that the other hypothetical still required the skill of the team. A better opponent will capitalize on your mistake which honestly it's better as is for the less skilled players to learn from the mistakes a equally skilled matchup wouldn't show.
-
Don't be an ass. The point he's making (and he's correct) is that once the "skill gap" reaches a certain point, the matches cease to be competitive. Cease to have any risk involved for the better player. The NFL goes to great lengths to maintain parity in the league. So that game's are competitive instead of being blowouts, and different teams win the championship each year. The New England Patriots are a great team and franchise because they are successful [i]in spite[/i] of being in an environment that has powerful SBMM among pro teams. Not because they can kick the shit out of Boston high school and college teams.
-
I'm not arguing that, it being one way or the other doesn't detract skill, it's because of the skill of one team that it's even one sided. Being more of a challenge or less doesn't mean less skill is involved, the opposite actually.
-
But there's no point in which the lesser skilled team can learn if they're being massacred before they can make a push. Don't get me wrong I love facing teams way above me. But there's a point at which there's too big of a skill gap to learn. It's not in any way fair for a top 100 team to play a too 3 team
-
Ever thought why they didn't implement that type of matchmaking to start with? Think about the community an then think how many players are poorly skilled, average etc. if they could have they probably would have, but who wants to wait forever just because they're getting better at the game? The likelihood of getting paired with a weaker team the further you go in the win bracket.
-
That would be true if what you said happened so often as your comment suggests. The thing is someone who is as bad as that would have a hard time making it to the last few wins, fluke wins happen but not consistently enough to make it to the lighthouse.
