[Ray_Kalm]

Optimism and Starscream believe that the games you play overall with someone else is what decides your skill level.

This is wrong; One can not be trying during random matches.

I'm getting tired of the way the PvPers act in this community. Star/Optimism who are both presumably "better" than me don't wish to prove it with 1vs1s, instead they consider "overall win to loss records" decide whether if you're better than someone else or not.

What do you think of this?

[zomniethe4]

If you know your going to be pvp'ing a series of games, why not try?
That's stupid on your part.

[Ray_Kalm]

If you know your going to be pvp'ing a series of games, why not try?
That's stupid on your part.

That's where it's wrong. If you're pvping a series of games, you don't have the NEED to try since there is nothing you're pvping for. Why do you think tournaments exists?

[zomniethe4]

If your gonna have a tournament have it then.
:\

[Ray_Kalm]

If your gonna have a tournament have it then.
:\

That wasn't the point I was making.

[Allie]

I believe in neither.
I do not believe there's a way to prove one person as the best, it's all opinions by how they fight against you.

Everyone PvPs differently against other people.
Obviously the ratio of wins/losses don't work because, as you said, people don't try on every single game, and people have good days and bad days.

A series of games that are set doesn't work because, as previously mentioned, people have good days and bad days, and good moods and bad moods, me and you PvPing is a GOOD example of this.

Then there's the simple, "best PvPer in the game".
This is not possible because, for example, if Opti could beat Nitex, Nitex can beat Star, and Star can beat Opti [example].

[Ray_Kalm]

I believe in neither.
I do not believe there's a way to prove one person as the best, it's all opinions by how they fight against you.

Everyone PvPs differently against other people.
Obviously the ratio of wins/losses don't work because, as you said, people don't try on every single game, and people have good days and bad days.

A series of games that are set doesn't work because, as previously mentioned, people have good days and bad days, and good moods and bad moods, me and you PvPing is a GOOD example of this.

Then there's the simple, "best PvPer in the game".
This is not possible because, for example, if Opti could beat Nitex, Nitex can beat Star, and Star can beat Opti [example].

Your theory is flawed. Say that one has more wins in Best of 3s overall than another, that person is clearly better.

[Allie]

Your logic is flawed.
Just because someone wins 3 games doesn't mean they were both at the peak of their game.

[Ray_Kalm]

Your logic is flawed.
Just because someone wins 3 games doesn't mean they were both at the peak of their game.

But that is what the series of 1vs1 is there to prove. The player accepted the 1vs1 on his/her own term.

You're theory is flawed.

[Allie]

You agree to a series of 1v1s, however that does not mean they were both at the top of their game during the 1v1s.

If you're saying a ratio of 1v1s, you're agreeing with Opti.
Thus, it's flawed because not everyone tries every single game during a ratio of 1v1s.

[Faith]

Your logic is flawed.
Just because someone wins 3 games doesn't mean they were both at the peak of their game.

To be quite honest, there is no REAL way to say who is best. Cuz like Allie said, people have good and bad days. 1vs1's dont prove who is better, it only goes to show that you can beat eachother. So, the ideal of someone being the "best" is flawed in itself. For the simple fact of theres good pvpers, bad ones, and people that just pvp for the hell of it. And, anyone can be good at pvp if they actually try, so no one is really better then someone else.

[Optimism]

The sole purpose of my 1v1 tournament rooms DAILY is to determine who is better. If you find yourself in this room, then prepare yourself and go as hard as possible for the victory. I could care less if you're not trying. You either snag the win, or you don't. Allie, the best pvpers win vs everyone***. As far as I know, no player that is better than another player can't beat another player at the top tier. For instance, I have a higher win ratio than anyone in the game at this point vs. any other player. Similarly, star has the second highest win ratio vs any other player at this point, aside from myself. And thirdly, you or Nitex have the next highest win ratio. I'm not saying that if I go up 1000-1, and then you win 20 straight, I won't say that you are better then me. If one manages to beat me 20 games in a row or even 10 for this matter, then the liklihood of you being better than me at that point in time is extremely high and I would concede to that player. I may have the win ratio (980+ on this person); however, players do improve and this needs to be taken into consideration. I won't gloat over wins three years ago vs. a player. The here and now is what matters. Nitex, if you want tournaments, I hold them every single day within my rooms to determine whose best. Join up and get to work.

[Ray_Kalm]

You agree to a series of 1v1s, however that does not mean they were both at the top of their game during the 1v1s.

If you're saying a ratio of 1v1s, you're agreeing with Opti.
Thus, it's flawed because not everyone tries every single game during a ratio of 1v1s.

If you're not good enough to posses the ability to BRING yourself to the peak of your metagame then you're simply NOT a good pvper.

Optimism and Starscream beleive in complete overall games to determine who's better. I won't consider neither have them better than me till they prove it in series consistently, while I do the same.

[Optimism]

If you're not good enough to posses the ability to BRING yourself to the peak of your metagame then you're simply NOT a good pvper.

Optimism and Starscream beleive in complete overall games to determine who's better. I won't consider neither have them better than me till they prove it in series consistently, while I do the same.

Thank god you've admitted this. Why are you (faith) saying that it isn't possible to determine who is better? Of course it is...

One may have good and bad days; however, if the over-all average wins of the past 10 days are in my favor, then I am certainly considered the better player. You simply can't claim to have 10 bad days. This is why I've stated the over-all ratio determines who is best, not a series of 3 matches. This negates the proposition of "every dog has his day".

Understand? Great!

[Ray_Kalm]

Thank god you've admitted this. Why are you (faith) saying that it isn't possible to determine who is better? Of course it is...

One may have good and bad days; however, if the over-all average wins of the past 10 days are in my favor, then I am certainly considered the better player. You simply can't claim to have 10 bad days. This is why I've stated the over-all ratio determines who is best, not a series of 3 matches. This negates the proposition of "every dog has his day".

Understand? Great!

Read the post you quoted more clearly. I completely said the opposite.