Quote:
Originally Posted by Burst Cancel
Two problems here:
- There's no way for people to tell if it's a "fresh" monk. The guy running hamstorm could be a pro out on a lark, or he could be a genuine idiot.
- GWAMM is not an indicator of skill. At best, it's an indicator of patience.
|
There is no title that is going to be an accurate indicator of skill, but you don't need a title to be 100% accurate for it to be of any use.
This is really a similar argument as, do the Hero rank titles mean anything? Some would say no, they can never mean anything whatsoever; after all, maybe that guy over there bought the title, or was terrible and carried by friends, while that other guy is an amazing player but just happens to be low ranked.
However, while those things may be true in some situations, what is the average or typical case? Suppose you took all R1 players (like me; I never got into HA) in Guild Wars and put them in a bag. Then you took all R10 players and put them in another bag. At random you make teams of players from its own bag. Do the R10 players, on average, do better than the R1 players? I would say yes, because even if all the other things are the same, the R10 players have way more experience playing. If the results really are indistinguishable, then yes, you can say rank is a meaningless indicator. But if there is a statistically different outcome, then the title does, on average, tell you something, even if it often treats individual players unfairly.
An analogous situation could be applied to GWAMM, for example, even though I'm sure there are plenty of awful GWAMM players out there. Just remember that there are plenty of awful players in general out there too. I would say that people must have learned at least some useful experience from achieving GWAMM. This also gets in to whether experience or knowledge counts as skill, or if you are one of the believers that only manual dexterity or twitch equals skill.