GuardDogg, on 21 August 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:
How can anyone say, a person who struggled to get to T1, is not any good, compared to those who moved to T1 with ease, is good.
Think of it this way, imagine getting to T1 is like scoring 10 bullseyes on a target. Player 1 gets 10 bullseyes in 20 shots, Player 2 gets 10 bullseyes in 200 shots, Player 3 gets 10 bullseyes in 2000 shots. Is Player 3 a good shot compared to Player 1? No, Player 3 simply got to the 10 bullseyes through shear attrition.
This is mostly how the tier system works due to the upward bias in how PSR works. Good players will get to T1 quickly (able to hit the bullseye consistently), weaker players will eventually get there just by playing a lot of matches and letting the upward bias slowly carry them to that point. Only truly bad players will never get to T1 (i.e. they can't even hit the target, much less a bullseye).
Being in T1 doesn't mean you are good. It only means that 1) you aren't completetly terrible, and 2) that you've played enough matches to get your PSR to that point. Stats are a
much, much better indicator of skill that tier.
Quote
That is like employment of a person started at the bottom, and sweated, pulled every muscle makes it to T1, then saying you are not good (shouldn't be in T1). To a person who moves up in a few days, gets the position.
Effort and skill are not the same thing. A person who is skilled enough to get to T1 quickly is better than a person who takes a long time to grind it out. If PSR was a zero sum system (i.e. for you to move up someone else had to move down) and you worked your way up by getting better than other players that would be one thing. As it stands though it functions almost (though not quite) like an XP bar.
At the end of the day the fact of the matter is that you really aren't a very good player. That's not an insult, there's nothing wrong with that, and there are any number of reasons that could contribute to it, but the fact still stands.
You've played a lot of matches (more than I have I think), but you've shown minimal improvement. I think the reason for that is likely that you're not taking ownership of your part in this or reflecting on how to get better. Your first response to any criticism is not to reflect on your gameplay and try to improve, it's to argue as to why the criticism is wrong, why it isn't your fault, or any other number of excuses. When you die in a match don't quit immediately, don't blame your team, look at what you did and ask yourself where you went wrong and what your could have done better. Do this on wins too. If you were out of position on a flank and died, learn from your mistake and don't flank like that again.
Don't focus on anything else other than what you could have done better in the matches you were in (win or lose). That is how you will get better. Identify specific things to work on and focus on getting better at those.
Take the Dragon build with 3 AC2s from earlier in this thread. It is a good build and better than the one that you were arguing for. You mentioned that the arm is easy to shoot off, that's true. However, what that means is not that the build is bad or that you shouldn't play it, but that you need to get better at shielding to be able to use it effectively. If you practice shielding it will be bad at first, but if you get good at it the build will be better overall. That's how you become a better player. If you can't/don't want to get better at shielding that's you're choice, but don't pretend as though another build is better when it's simply your lack of ability to utilize the superior build.
Having different playstyles is fine, however that's not to say that all playstyles are equal. Some playstyles are inherently bad and if you use them you will never advance to really being a good player (e.g. sitting in the back lobbing LRMS). One of the core traits of good players is flexibility, the ability to adapt to new situations. Good players adapt their playstyle to the mech they are piloting, the map they are on, and the players that they are with. Some mechs/builds in this game are just better than others if you are unable to use them effectively it means that your playstyle needs to change because it is what is holding you back.
You are free to choose any playstyle you want, however if you want to get better or you want your game advice and tactics to be worth listening to you need to be willing to adapt your playstyle to what is most effective. You can't change the meta, but you can get better at playing with/in it. If you aren't willing to change, practice things you're bad at, and constantly adapt then you will never become a better player, you'll be stuck at a constant level of meritocracy.
Stats aren't toxic, they aren't inherently good or bad. What they are is cold hard reality. Toxic players may use stats in toxic ways, but it's the players not the stats that are at fault. If you find stats embarrassing or toxic that's more of a reflection on you personally. You're projecting your feelings and experiences. You can't control what other people do or say, you can only control what you do and how you react to what they do. It's the internet, people are going to be rude, insulting, and toxic. That's unfortunately, but letting it stress you out is foolish. If a game or forum is stressing you out and getting your blood pressure up rather than being fun then you really should consider stepping away from it.
Stats are a great tool for players looking to improve themselves and a rough metric for quickly evaluating how likely a given player is to know what they're talking about. If stats bother you then ignore them. Understand though that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not all opinions are equally valid. If you want your advice/suggestions to be taken seriously then you need to be able to demonstrate that you do in fact know what your are talking about and the best way to do that is through actions, not words.