Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
This thread is about who's best on the server, not who's good.
And Lol for getting sad at a thread like this. It's really a thread about licking your friends' balls, duh. Take it for what it is!
Edited by Phine on 3/26/2012 9:30 AM PDT
I respectfully disagree. I guess it depends on your definition of good, vs. being great.
I've never really got into arena, just don't have the time with RL crap, but I'd think to get 2k in Arena you have to have some degree of skill. It may not be too terribly difficult depending on other factors like gear and comp, but you can't be a complete baddie and get 2k, especially if you are playing with other baddies.
Consider this. Over 8 million people play this game, and I'd say less than 2% of that entire population have a 2k rated arena team. In order to reach that level I would think you would have to at least know your class and have reletively decent communication. I could be wrong though because like I said, I just don't do arena.
I see a person who has a 2k rating in arena and usually they are decent player i.e. good. Are they great? No, far from it, but they don't exactly suck either.
I will say that 2k+ in RBG's is significantly easier to achieve than it is in Arena, but that's another topic.
By the way, what's with the "starfish" comment. I have never played with you in my life lol. I play with the same people every week and you have never been one of them.
On a side note, who was in Stormwind yesterday when we took over the AH for about 30 minutes? :)
I would say something like 15%+ have been 2000 or higher in arena, I mean with mmr deflation at the moment it means a bit more but 2k, 2200 neither are good really. Its just unforunate that people still think that way; and I agree this server doesn't have a lot of stellar players anymore, cata weened them out. But is that any reason to give the credit?
I bet less than 15% of the wow population has an arena team
There are not 1.2 million Rivals/gladiators. I would say you're looking at between 0.1%-1% for 2k+. You can spin that as bad if you want, but your number is definitely wrong.
Maynard is wrong too though. I played warlock for maybe a year, and played to 2k in a couple hours without voice communication with somebody I'd never pvp'd with before. It doesn't require much -- most WoW players just don't pvp or aren't very good (myself and that 2k partner included).
Edited by Phine on 3/26/2012 6:22 PM PDT
That's top 0.5% of people who are playing a particular bracket, not top 0.5% of subscribers. Go back to school and learn to numbers.
Edited by Phine on 3/26/2012 7:45 PM PDT
No, you need to read between the lines better.
Basically he's here to tell us that everyone on Eredar is really bad, leave us with no way to judge him (as if people give a !@#$), and then start spouting ignorant anti-semitic garbage.
Also Foxy taught me how to read so obviously he's the best.
Edited by Phine on 3/27/2012 10:15 PM PDT
So what you're trying to tell me is that you're a Holocaust victim? Interesting...
1) That was hardly an anti-semitic comment so gtfo.
2) Read between the lines, I'm saying it blatantly EREDAR & ITS PLAYERS ARE LARGELY BAD.
3) Durkheim was my grammar teacher.
PSPS grats on your first 2.2k Pigboy you've now reached mediocrity.
Edited by Flownominal on 3/28/2012 8:08 AM PDT
Guys, you're looking at this entire thing the wrong way.
On the one hand, you have the people who defend what I'll begin referring to as "2200ism". These people stand by their belief that achieving 2200 personal arena rating is a lofty and respectable goal, as they now stand within the top 20 of 2000 arena groups.
On the other hand, you have the people who shoot down 2200ism by saying that the entire player base is so bad, that being the not bad one is hardly an achievement, because it's like making a pouring of the fish into a barrel, and shooting those.
Don't you see? The fundamental flaw of 2200ism is that it attempts to gauge player skill on a number that was meant for matchmaking!
I've looked at the ladder rankings. People with a 98% win-loss rate (127/3) games get out-ranked by people with 70% win-rate (194/52), just because the 70% play more matches. Does that mean the 70% team is BETTER? Like hell it does. 3 losses vs. 52. Yet people will look at that arena rating and say "oh, 70% is better, they have a higher score"
What it really boils down to is that arenas are a flawed premise to be judging player vs player skill on. There currently isn't an in-game metric that suitably estimates a player's skill.
The only accurate point of reference is your own PERSONAL interaction with whatever player you're attempting to gauge. That interaction gives you a relative comparison to anyone else you have interacted with in the past. And it is only accurate to you, because you have not played with/against every player.
Now, I'm not saying this thread doesn't have merit. It is a conglomeration of each poster's personal, albeit subjective lists of who they have seen to be the best among their peers. I think that is just fine. And that is what it should keep doing.
Just without all this nonsense of why someone's list is wrong.
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.