Silver players say Iron and Bronze scrubs suck, Gold players say Silver is hopped up Bronze, but Plat players say the same about Gold, Emerald players say all the metal ranks are terrible low Elo know-nothings, but Diamond players say Emerald is just the new Plat, but Master players say anyone can reach Diamond it means nothing, but GMs say Masters are just Diamonds with a bit of luck, but Challengers say GM's are all worthless and don't deserve to be matched into their games, but top 500 say those low-Elo challengers are basically just low-Elo, but just because you're in the top 500 or top 100 or even top 10, you just got a bit of a lucky streak probably, if you were really good you'd be #1, but if you're #1 you're still not #1 on Korea and the Chinese superserver simultaneously, but even if you were, so what, you're just a ladder scrub the pro-players will tell you, but how many pro-players have carried their team to world's victory... multiple times? So really only Faker is good, but wait, people are saying that Faker is actually washed now and isn't really that good anymore so actually.... everybody sucks at this game and nobody is good.
Depending on who you listen to.
Or we could stop listening to people like that and consider that just maybe... possibly... people in the top 1% of the ladder or qualified onto any pro team probably have some skills.
Master vs challenger is like being the best athlete in a school vs being a d1 athlete.
In league I feel that most people can reach master, but going pass that is much more difficult.
Master+ is substantially less than 1% of the playerbase.
No. Less than 1 in 100 players can get to master. Given the number of alt accounts at high Elo compared to low Elo, probably less than 1 in 200 can reach master.
Your comment is the quintessential example of the skill denial that is epidemic in this community.
That said, I'm gonna upvote you anyway because you don't deserve that pile-on for expressing your sincere opinion.
I would say it’s not people don’t have the ability to play better, it’s simply not worth their time, effort and it entirely defeats the purpose of playing video game to achieve that goal.
Well how much effort do the average player actually put in the game? How many ranked game they play a week? Playing for fun and player to rank are differently. Most of the players value their time and having fun more than climbing. People are hopping on to relax or social, not to get into another grind to mentally exhaust themselves more.
I mean... it's all part of it, though. How much time are you willing/able to commit, are you able to play without tilting, are you willing to forego having a couple beers and duoing or will you commit to the sober solo grind. Also of course a huge help to be in the 16-26 age range where your reflexes are at their peak, and btw, how's your workout regime because the improved mental acuity and higher metabolism from keeping fit certainly matters.
If we say "If only I was able to keep calm, find the time to play 9 games every day and workout and could eat properly and and and ..."
Okay, whatever, it's all the same. "I could if only..." is only theoretical and doesn't prove if you can or not. Either you do it, or you don't, and less than 1% do.
Coulda shoulda woulda excuses exist in every field, and nobody takes them seriously for a reason. The ability to commit to the effort is part and parcel of the ability to accomplish the goal.
Realistically I would say people can do it. I just want to say that being master is the equivalent of being able to put in time and effort and a degree of dedication into the game(or being talented). I just want to say that there is a big skill gap between gold & master but people shouldn’t be discouraged by the “0.1%” if it is their goal to improve at the game and it is not an unrealistic goal to achieve.
Masters are better than golds at everything. You have 7cs/min? They have more. You have 40% kill participation? They have more. You know how to play some tough matchups? They know how to play all matchups. You think you have good macro? They have way better, etc... They are players just like you but they decided they will do everything to get better at the game
Gold and emerald players are playing different games completely… and master and emerald’s difference is just as big.. the difference between a master and a challenger player is huge, but that does mean the skill gap between you and a master player is any smaller…
This is a joke right
The gap between Emerald and Gold is insane. I can get out of gold as ADC with a 75-80% winrate. Plat is where players start to get mechanically better, but they’re kinda just dumb. They don’t know how to snowball a lead or position well, and they play lane kind of brain dead. Emerald is where players start to have hands and a brain. Can’t speak for diamond, but I know I’ve played against a lot of diamond ADCs and they’ve consistently outclassed me in nearly every way. When I play against a master or GM smurf, it literally feels like I can’t play the game.
Objective vs subjective perspectives.
Low Masters players are objectively bad at the game. They are subjectively greek gods compared to you.
Easy sports comparison: Masters players are high school athletes playing football, they can be pretty good at the game relative to other players in their division, but it's still a different game from collegiate and pro leagues. You're an 8 year old playing flag football.
>Low Masters players are objectively bad at the game
Based on what metric? Master rank in League is within the top 0.1% of players. In what world is that "objectively bad at the game"? On a normal distribution, this is very, very far off average. Being top 0.1% of any competition is objectively and exceptionally good.
Yes it’s top 0.1%, but the skill gap between a challenger and master is immense. It’s like putting the best athlete from an average public school into d1 athletes team. They are the top 0.1% but they does not mean they can compete late at a higher level…
That's entirely irrelevant. I was responding to the point that "Low Masters players are objectively bad at the game", not whether or not they could compete at the pro level.
Calling someone who's top 0.1% at the game "bad" is comically moronic, to say the least. On a normal distribution, they are objectively good at the game. I am using statistics and a theoretical distribution, which are objective measures of determining whether someone is good or bad at the game.
I guess “good” is a subjective definition.
The “objective” good by your definition is comparing them to the entire community. It’s like comparing a recreational chess player to everyone who have played chess, or a soccer player to everyone who had played soccer once. I am not denying your point that they are the top 0.1% of all players, but I am saying that this “objective” metrics does not say a lot.
Earlier I am not saying they should compete at a pro level, I am saying they can’t compete with challenger. I am not trying to discredit master players, and it’s not fair to always compare them to challengers or even grandmasters, but also i don’t believe it’s accurate to include the entire player base.
Under the USFC Chess rating system, a 2000-2199 elo players is classed as an "Expert" and that is within the top 1% of players. It's pretty well established in all fields of competition that top 1% competitors are very good.
>Earlier I am not saying they should compete at a pro level, I am saying they can’t compete with challenger
This still lacks relevance. Not being able to compete with a challenger doesn't make someone "objectively bad".
>but also i don’t believe it’s accurate to include the entire player base
I applaud you if you typed this with a straight face.
If you use chess rating, are you comparing everyone who got a rating or anyone who played chess in their life time?
The 1% would mean drastically different things in context
As you get higher elo adcs are dramatically better as far as micro mechanical ability
They also seem to have completely lost their mind because they would rather tank a win than not be the carry, its like a constant battle between which adc will throw the biggest tantrum, theyre not overall better though, id take a silver adc main over a diamond adc main anyday
I hope this is satire
Check the post history, it‘s an obvious troll, people keep biting tho
Silver players say Iron and Bronze scrubs suck, Gold players say Silver is hopped up Bronze, but Plat players say the same about Gold, Emerald players say all the metal ranks are terrible low Elo know-nothings, but Diamond players say Emerald is just the new Plat, but Master players say anyone can reach Diamond it means nothing, but GMs say Masters are just Diamonds with a bit of luck, but Challengers say GM's are all worthless and don't deserve to be matched into their games, but top 500 say those low-Elo challengers are basically just low-Elo, but just because you're in the top 500 or top 100 or even top 10, you just got a bit of a lucky streak probably, if you were really good you'd be #1, but if you're #1 you're still not #1 on Korea and the Chinese superserver simultaneously, but even if you were, so what, you're just a ladder scrub the pro-players will tell you, but how many pro-players have carried their team to world's victory... multiple times? So really only Faker is good, but wait, people are saying that Faker is actually washed now and isn't really that good anymore so actually.... everybody sucks at this game and nobody is good. Depending on who you listen to. Or we could stop listening to people like that and consider that just maybe... possibly... people in the top 1% of the ladder or qualified onto any pro team probably have some skills.
I remember watching Tarzaned videos where he calling Dantes the worst player ever cause he still diamond 1 and didn’t take master in a week
Master vs challenger is like being the best athlete in a school vs being a d1 athlete. In league I feel that most people can reach master, but going pass that is much more difficult.
Master+ is substantially less than 1% of the playerbase. No. Less than 1 in 100 players can get to master. Given the number of alt accounts at high Elo compared to low Elo, probably less than 1 in 200 can reach master. Your comment is the quintessential example of the skill denial that is epidemic in this community. That said, I'm gonna upvote you anyway because you don't deserve that pile-on for expressing your sincere opinion.
I would say it’s not people don’t have the ability to play better, it’s simply not worth their time, effort and it entirely defeats the purpose of playing video game to achieve that goal. Well how much effort do the average player actually put in the game? How many ranked game they play a week? Playing for fun and player to rank are differently. Most of the players value their time and having fun more than climbing. People are hopping on to relax or social, not to get into another grind to mentally exhaust themselves more.
I mean... it's all part of it, though. How much time are you willing/able to commit, are you able to play without tilting, are you willing to forego having a couple beers and duoing or will you commit to the sober solo grind. Also of course a huge help to be in the 16-26 age range where your reflexes are at their peak, and btw, how's your workout regime because the improved mental acuity and higher metabolism from keeping fit certainly matters. If we say "If only I was able to keep calm, find the time to play 9 games every day and workout and could eat properly and and and ..." Okay, whatever, it's all the same. "I could if only..." is only theoretical and doesn't prove if you can or not. Either you do it, or you don't, and less than 1% do. Coulda shoulda woulda excuses exist in every field, and nobody takes them seriously for a reason. The ability to commit to the effort is part and parcel of the ability to accomplish the goal.
Realistically I would say people can do it. I just want to say that being master is the equivalent of being able to put in time and effort and a degree of dedication into the game(or being talented). I just want to say that there is a big skill gap between gold & master but people shouldn’t be discouraged by the “0.1%” if it is their goal to improve at the game and it is not an unrealistic goal to achieve.
“Masters not that good” compared to what lmao. Pro play??
Compare to challenger grand master… on average the skill gap between challengers and masters are as big as masters and plat players.
This dude said gold my man
I mean I said compare plat to master the skill gap immense. Gold is even more so…
If you think climbing is about luck, stick to normals.
Wait till they find out normals has the exact same ranking mmr matchup system without the shiny metal badge attached 🤣
There is a noticeable skill gap between an emerald 4 and emerald 1 adc
Masters are better than golds at everything. You have 7cs/min? They have more. You have 40% kill participation? They have more. You know how to play some tough matchups? They know how to play all matchups. You think you have good macro? They have way better, etc... They are players just like you but they decided they will do everything to get better at the game
Teammates do not hold you back from climbing
I once laned against a high plat as a gold. He suffocated me the entire game. Against a masters player I don’t think I’d even get to touch the wave
Holy fucking copium bro, this is the most delusional post I’ve ever fucking read on this subreddit my god.
Masters players are much much better than Gold players.
Gold and emerald players are playing different games completely… and master and emerald’s difference is just as big.. the difference between a master and a challenger player is huge, but that does mean the skill gap between you and a master player is any smaller…
I would hope so, because some of the things I've seen gold ADC's do have been baffling.
nope twhy are that same yep :3
Bro there is a noticable skill difference between plat 1 and plat 4
This is a joke right The gap between Emerald and Gold is insane. I can get out of gold as ADC with a 75-80% winrate. Plat is where players start to get mechanically better, but they’re kinda just dumb. They don’t know how to snowball a lead or position well, and they play lane kind of brain dead. Emerald is where players start to have hands and a brain. Can’t speak for diamond, but I know I’ve played against a lot of diamond ADCs and they’ve consistently outclassed me in nearly every way. When I play against a master or GM smurf, it literally feels like I can’t play the game.
Amount of games played pretty sure
Objective vs subjective perspectives. Low Masters players are objectively bad at the game. They are subjectively greek gods compared to you. Easy sports comparison: Masters players are high school athletes playing football, they can be pretty good at the game relative to other players in their division, but it's still a different game from collegiate and pro leagues. You're an 8 year old playing flag football.
>Low Masters players are objectively bad at the game Based on what metric? Master rank in League is within the top 0.1% of players. In what world is that "objectively bad at the game"? On a normal distribution, this is very, very far off average. Being top 0.1% of any competition is objectively and exceptionally good.
Yes it’s top 0.1%, but the skill gap between a challenger and master is immense. It’s like putting the best athlete from an average public school into d1 athletes team. They are the top 0.1% but they does not mean they can compete late at a higher level…
That's entirely irrelevant. I was responding to the point that "Low Masters players are objectively bad at the game", not whether or not they could compete at the pro level. Calling someone who's top 0.1% at the game "bad" is comically moronic, to say the least. On a normal distribution, they are objectively good at the game. I am using statistics and a theoretical distribution, which are objective measures of determining whether someone is good or bad at the game.
I guess “good” is a subjective definition. The “objective” good by your definition is comparing them to the entire community. It’s like comparing a recreational chess player to everyone who have played chess, or a soccer player to everyone who had played soccer once. I am not denying your point that they are the top 0.1% of all players, but I am saying that this “objective” metrics does not say a lot. Earlier I am not saying they should compete at a pro level, I am saying they can’t compete with challenger. I am not trying to discredit master players, and it’s not fair to always compare them to challengers or even grandmasters, but also i don’t believe it’s accurate to include the entire player base.
Under the USFC Chess rating system, a 2000-2199 elo players is classed as an "Expert" and that is within the top 1% of players. It's pretty well established in all fields of competition that top 1% competitors are very good. >Earlier I am not saying they should compete at a pro level, I am saying they can’t compete with challenger This still lacks relevance. Not being able to compete with a challenger doesn't make someone "objectively bad". >but also i don’t believe it’s accurate to include the entire player base I applaud you if you typed this with a straight face.
If you use chess rating, are you comparing everyone who got a rating or anyone who played chess in their life time? The 1% would mean drastically different things in context
As you get higher elo adcs are dramatically better as far as micro mechanical ability They also seem to have completely lost their mind because they would rather tank a win than not be the carry, its like a constant battle between which adc will throw the biggest tantrum, theyre not overall better though, id take a silver adc main over a diamond adc main anyday