|
On April 08 2014 20:52 gTank wrote:
I have one major problem with ranks in this game as well.
Most of the time, I play with friends that are all GN or even below while I play on double AK range. Still we lose so many games that my rank goes down to 3 star and back to AK sometimes. Basically, I feel that I am sacrificing my rank (and fun to play) for being social with ppl I know.
God forbid you would have to carry in cs:go for the guys that do the same in Dota2 and League for you, right?
Still love you tho <3
|
11589 Posts
That is still not really intangible. You can tell the difference between a player who is communicating poorly (as in not at all, or ineffectively) and one who isn't. Attitude isn't subjective either, really.
Also, they matter whether you are solo or 5 stack.
|
On April 09 2014 00:40 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2014 23:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
lol, so much elitism over the pass few posts. There are 18 ranks in the game guys. There isn't a distinct rank where players are super bad, which happens to be the rank below you, and the rank after is instant death with everyone being aware of all the skills, which happens to be the rank you are on. What are you talking about? Silvers are objectively terrible at competitive. Novas are objectively bad. MGs are the beginning of not-good-but-not-so-bad. DMG has huge variance, going from okay all the way up to really good. Eagle+LEM are really good. SMFC is 3 very good players, and from what I understand, the rest are all blatant hackers. GE is boosted people who never play and pros.
What are you talking about ? Online is a joke any which way lmfao.
|
Are we really arguing the semantics of intangibles. Give it a break
|
The only thing that matters is whether or not you hit your 360 no scope awp shots.
|
On April 09 2014 02:23 Tennet wrote:
The only thing that matters is whether or not you hit your 360 no scope awp shots.
Jumping while flashbanged through smoke headshots only.
|
Doubles only. Single kills don't count
|
On April 09 2014 01:56 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 01:45 travis wrote:On April 09 2014 01:24 yamato77 wrote:
There are definitely objective skills in CS that determine how "good" you are. The game is not one full of "intangibles", as a sports broadcaster would say.
To list a few of the most important:
Aim
Crosshair Placement
Map Awareness
Grenade Usage
Economy Management
Map Positioning
Information Gathering/"Peeking"
Map Movement/Rotation
Movement in general (strafe shooting, bunny hopping, boosting, etc.)
Map/Location Knowledge
You can observe any of these traits in a player. You can objectify their skill. The ranking system broadly averages their skill across these areas as they relate to the importance of success at their current rank. As you get higher up, the overall average is higher for every player, but some of them may grow or lessen in importance, as the cap of skill each category has may be finite. But to argue that skill at Counter Strike is somehow subjective would be silly. why is that silly? it could be considered subjective because out of the skills you listed, one person might value say map awareness more and another person might value aim more. you can't objectively measure an overall thats based largely in opinion Are any one of those skills opinion based? Like, is your opinion on what makes good aim different than mine? I don't think so. You could say you value aim more, but there is definitely an average level of all of the skills that produces the players that are the best (professional players on elite teams like Titan). Some players may be better at one thing (like Shoxie at murdering people en masse), but that does not make them "the best player" if they are worse at something else than other players. Different skills does not equal subjective evaluation. You have to take into account all relevant skill levels to get an objective sense of someone's rank. Some will be more heavily weighted than others, but many things are realistically impossible to perfect, so there will always be variance in those categories, even at the highest level. Most skills that are not perfectable should be equally weighted. Those that are finite, such as knowledge of maps or guns, should be weighted less. There is little room for opinion. Just google subjective vs objective, and realise that you are using the word wrong. Objective is a word with real meaning; it isn't a word you use to give emphasis to your other words. There are skills in CS that can be described like the ones you have listed, but none of those skills, except perhaps economy management are objective; they are all entirely subjective. I don't get how you can even call skill objective, unless you have no idea what these words mean.
|
11589 Posts
On April 09 2014 02:21 Shelke14 wrote:
Are we really arguing the semantics of intangibles. Give it a break
This is interesting discussion. There's no reason to belittle the discourse by calling it "arguing about semantics" when there's plenty of thought to be had about the skills of CS:GO and how they relate to MM and the ranking system. When someone makes the argument that silver players aren't objectively bad, or that skills are subjective, I want to learn why they think differently than I do.
There's also no reason to say "online is a joke" and further belittle the idea of ranks in online match play, because the practical reality is that the game will never solely be played with 0 ping, and there are many things that make you good that have nothing to do with ping. Dunno if that was just a troll post, but I'm actually being serious.
|
11589 Posts
On April 09 2014 02:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2014 01:56 yamato77 wrote:On April 09 2014 01:45 travis wrote:On April 09 2014 01:24 yamato77 wrote:
There are definitely objective skills in CS that determine how "good" you are. The game is not one full of "intangibles", as a sports broadcaster would say.
To list a few of the most important:
Aim
Crosshair Placement
Map Awareness
Grenade Usage
Economy Management
Map Positioning
Information Gathering/"Peeking"
Map Movement/Rotation
Movement in general (strafe shooting, bunny hopping, boosting, etc.)
Map/Location Knowledge
You can observe any of these traits in a player. You can objectify their skill. The ranking system broadly averages their skill across these areas as they relate to the importance of success at their current rank. As you get higher up, the overall average is higher for every player, but some of them may grow or lessen in importance, as the cap of skill each category has may be finite. But to argue that skill at Counter Strike is somehow subjective would be silly. why is that silly? it could be considered subjective because out of the skills you listed, one person might value say map awareness more and another person might value aim more. you can't objectively measure an overall thats based largely in opinion Are any one of those skills opinion based? Like, is your opinion on what makes good aim different than mine? I don't think so. You could say you value aim more, but there is definitely an average level of all of the skills that produces the players that are the best (professional players on elite teams like Titan). Some players may be better at one thing (like Shoxie at murdering people en masse), but that does not make them "the best player" if they are worse at something else than other players. Different skills does not equal subjective evaluation. You have to take into account all relevant skill levels to get an objective sense of someone's rank. Some will be more heavily weighted than others, but many things are realistically impossible to perfect, so there will always be variance in those categories, even at the highest level. Most skills that are not perfectable should be equally weighted. Those that are finite, such as knowledge of maps or guns, should be weighted less. There is little room for opinion. Just google subjective vs objective, and realise that you are using the word wrong. Objective is a word with real meaning; it isn't a word you use to give emphasis to your other words. There are skills in CS that can be described like the ones you have listed, but none of those skills, except perhaps economy management are objective; they are all entirely subjective. I don't get how you can even call skill objective, unless you have no idea what these words mean.
Subjective means "depends on perspective/personal opinion" and objective means "is independent of perspective/opinion".
Now, are you really going to argue that good aim is subjective? I'm not an idiot, you don't need to act like I don't know what I'm talking about.
Like, there are even results that prove skill is objective. Kills, deaths, assists, wins, losses, all of these things are FACTS (objective realities) that are the result of SKILLS being applied. I seriously don't understand the subjective argument here.
|
The term good is subjective by definition though.
Anyway, nobody is ever aimbot good (although shoxie comes close from time to time yes) so good aim is based upon the perception of people as to what qualifies as good. Absolute "good" (instant headshots no matter what) isn't attainable.
|
11589 Posts
On April 09 2014 02:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
The term good is subjective by definition though.
Anyway, nobody is ever aimbot good (although shoxie comes close from time to time yes) so good aim is based upon the perception of people as to what qualifies as good. Absolute "good" (instant headshots no matter what) isn't attainable.
Yeah but you can always compare it to "aimbot good" to see how close one gets. There is still evaluation, and you can see it. It's objective because everyone sees the same thing. You can't see someone hit every shot in a round and say "that was bad", nor vice versa.
The problem arises when you're trying to place an individual without comparing him to a standard already in place. You have to have something to compare someone to, but once you have that, it is almost always clear which one is better or worse, and that's because of observable, objective facts like who gets more kills/headshots/damage done than the other person given enough sample size.
EDIT: So perhaps, instead of saying just saying "good", we should qualify it with a standard we can all observe and understand (like we just did with "aimbot good") as to remove the subjective element from our discussion of the skill of players of a different rank.
|
Hyrule19237 Posts
good aim is aim that results in a kill when you click
not good aim is aim that results in wasting ammo and making lots of noise when you click
|
11589 Posts
On April 09 2014 02:50 tofucake wrote:
good aim is aim that results in a kill when you click
not good aim is aim that results in wasting ammo and making lots of noise when you click
See, tofu gets it!
:D
|
There's so much wrong with that lol
|
one could also argue that CS skills are indeed objective, but impossible to really measure, due to their complex interplay for example.
but it's also obvious that people will judge skill subjectively anyway.
|
11589 Posts
On April 09 2014 02:56 Sn0_Man wrote:
There's so much wrong with that lol
Any imperfection with comparison is just a result of factors which are out of the player's control and don't necessarily imply subjectivity.
Like ping, for example.
|
11589 Posts
On April 09 2014 02:57 beg wrote:
one could also argue that CS skills are indeed objective, but impossible to really measure, due to their complex interplay for example.
but it's also obvious that people will judge skill subjectively anyway.
Not impossible, but very time consuming.
I'm okay with that, though, because there's still a ranking system that does a pretty good job of objective measurement as it is. Yes, there are flaws, but perfection is unattainable.
|
A ranking system and saying that X rank is objectively bad or good are two different things. You can say people in higher ranks are better than lower ranks. That is fine. But saying that there are distinct ranks which can be considered good or bad is entirely subjective. Everybody views which ranks are good/bad differently. Which is why I told Tofucake that he is using it wrong. Which sparked off this whole objective/subjective thing. Nobody is saying that skills can't be described or that a higher rank has a higher skill than another.
|
Hyrule19237 Posts
I'm not using it wrong. Silvers are objectively bad. Eagles+ are objectively good. People in between are objectively between good and bad.
also, it's a lowercase t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
