EPTOn July 25 2011 22:32 Galaxy_Zerg wrote:
Yeh, okay, that's why there's tons of players who don't get GM that are just as good as the GM's
I've beaten tons of GM's and I'm not GM... therefore, it means nothing
Go look at any GM's match history.. do they only lose to GM players?
My case stands, you tried to change my mind, but it didn't work
Also, suppose he does get GM. I've beaten him before, and I'm probably not going to try to get GM.. does that make him better than me? Did he achieve anything? Maybe you're a bronze player and GM seems appealing to you, but once you get to their actual level you realize that it means nothing
SlayerSCella, EGIdrA, FXOSheth, LGShew, JulyZerg.... all aren't GM on NA. the List goes on. Do you really think they lose to all GM players?
Yeh, okay, that's why there's tons of players who don't get GM that are just as good as the GM's
I've beaten tons of GM's and I'm not GM... therefore, it means nothing
Go look at any GM's match history.. do they only lose to GM players?
My case stands, you tried to change my mind, but it didn't work
Also, suppose he does get GM. I've beaten him before, and I'm probably not going to try to get GM.. does that make him better than me? Did he achieve anything? Maybe you're a bronze player and GM seems appealing to you, but once you get to their actual level you realize that it means nothing
SlayerSCella, EGIdrA, FXOSheth, LGShew, JulyZerg.... all aren't GM on NA. the List goes on. Do you really think they lose to all GM players?
I don't think you have a firm grasp on how the ladder system works. I can't explain it to you further.
It has nothing to do with "appeal". You know nothing about me.
You completely misunderstood everything in my post.
Not all players in GM are good. Not all good players in GM. Not all GM players beat all players not in GM league. I completely agree with everything you said there.
However, again, you don't understand how the ladder works.
You say it has "no meaning".
Take 10 randomly selected players from GM. Have them play against 10 randomly selected players in Bronze. Now, 10 in Silver. Now, 10 in Gold. 10 in Plat. 10 in Diamond. 10 in Masters.
Do they lose some? Yes. Will they win more than they lose? Yes.
If GM players beat lower league players more than they lose (more than a 50% win ratio), then that statistically proves that GM players are, on average, better.
I'm not saying all GM players are great. I'm not saying they don't lose. I'm not saying that it contains all the best players. I'm not saying that there aren't top players who aren't in GM. I'm not saying they don't lose to players in lower leagues. I'm not saying they are as good as GM players in Korea.
I am SAYING that GM players, on average, are BETTER than players in lower leagues.
If that weren't true, they wouldn't have advanced to GM.
There are players who don't belong in GM, but are there. There are players who AREN'T in GM, but belong there.
Do you honestly not understand how the ladder works?
For GM to have "no meaning", all players would have to be placed there randomly. All players in all leagues would have to be assigned randomly.
That makes absolutely no sense. The ladder system exists to allow better players to rank up. The system has flaws, but on average, a random, GM player will be better than a random bronze player. If that is true, then GM has meaning.
You are saying it has zero meaning. You are wrong. The statistics, the ladder, and a common understanding of how a ladder system works proves you wrong.
"I've beaten tons of GM's and I'm not GM... therefore, it means nothing"
This statement shows how little you understand. That is a complete logical fallacy.
Do you honestly not see how that sentence makes no sense? It literally does not follow any train of logic.
Are you seriously implying that, on average, a GM player is no better than a bronze or silver player?
If you say that the above statement is true, you are beyond help.
If you say it is false, then obviously, league standings have some meaning.
Again. I'm not saying all GM players are better than all Masters players, or Diamond, or plat. I'm saying, on average, league standings give a GENERAL IDEA OF SKILL LEVEL.
Even if that isn't true, if they give ANY idea of skill level, then the placement in league has "some meaning".
Stop trying to be correct for the sake of being correct. Realize how flawed your logic is.
All of this results in the following:
As you continue to win, you will continue to play better players. That is how a ladder works. By saying a league "has no meaning", you are saying that it doesn't, on average, have better players than lower leagues. That is false. As you progress, players generally improve. Thus, the ladder system is a great way to improve. There are better ways, but that doesn't mean the ladder system (and GM ranking) mean nothing.
