Profile of elchino7

This happens in other games as well. Been #1 in ladder is generally more a thing of a grind than been a tournament winner player. It can be COH2, SC2, WC3 or AOE2.

This doesn't mean he can't be good. I'm sure anyone top5 can defend themselves and achieve quarters regularly.

Tournament format plays different as well. You know which map you play and with which commanders you want to bring.

Before abandoning this thread as the discussion seems to be going circular i'll repeat what i tried to explain before.


Someone asked why don't we have more top players providing feedback or commenting in the forum.

I answered to that and i'll repeat that it's not worth the effort to do so unless you curate it so much that only a reduced number of people can comment and discuss in a topic.

Which is why there had always existed private channels of communication to do so or they opt to do it in their own channels (twitch, youtube)

Nothing short of a major rejiggering will solve the UKF question, honestly. They need a factional rework. I think the Officer has a lot of potential, incidentally, but I think it should be an upgradeable rifle squad that UKF begin the game with, that can upgrade into several directions.

IS need major changes.

UKF are STILL without a stock mortar.

Etcetera.

It's a faction with exploitable weaknesses but riddle with extreme inconsistent powerspikes.

I seriously doubt that, since most of the feedback by players including top one has to do with meta units and abilities.

People who make MODs can provide a extremely useful feedback and identify issue easier. Each approach is better at certain areas and none is completely superior to other.

Absolutely, but that's the extreme minority. People can have different opinions about what is the best solution/approach but i don't think anyone can discuss that people like Sanders or MrSmith know about the game.

I think at this point we are only discussing about the existence of exceptions rather than the sheer effectiveness of a generalisation.

+1000

Sadly this "show me your player card" argument still comes up.
Maybe they should read what the legendary Milan manager Arrigo Sacci said when journalists asked him if he could coach although he was no good player:
You don't have to be a horse to be a jockey."

A "good" player knows how to play the game, and use information within the framework of a match. It doesn't necessarily mean they're more capable of balancing the game, unfortunately.

It's not about balancing the game but providing quality feedback. It's more likely that the high ranked player knows WHY he is losing and what's good and bad during a meta vs the really low ranked players who is still struggling to use the basic units.
It's all about reducing the amount of "white noise".

Going by that analogy, do you want to discuss football team strategy with the drunk guy in the bar or the ex professional player.
Execution, knowledge and analysis are all different skill sets. But if i have to pick a sample size of people to discuss a topic with, i'll rather have the highest % of having decent feedback if we are been pragmatic.

You could do the same AskHistorians does on Reddit. Create a solid rule set for discussions and ban/purge everyone who doesnt follow these rules.

There may be a correlation between rank and game knowledge, but there is no causality. Its not like high rank=good balance suggestion, lower rank=worse suggestion, lowest rank=trash suggestion. So its completely worthless to sort people by rank.

This has been discussed. Too late for this forum unless many users poke red/black/oranges and ask for a change to be applied.

There's no correlation but it's a matter of been pragmatic. Would you rather pick 100 persons from the top200 to provide feedback or the top4000.

At the end of the day rank is only a simple filter to know what kind of gameplay experience the user has. Same as which faction or mode he plays.

Well we have already seen top player that even play in tournaments lack basic knowledge of the game mechanics because basically you do not need to know the mechanics of how things work and know the end result is enough.

Still the feedback they can provide is infinitely more useful. They don't need to know the solution to the problem, rather than identifying or presenting it.