Where do you think "high elo" stands?
Jovy
<Admin>
<Admin>
OTGBionicArm wrote:
That kinda talk kinda condemns every player -diamond to feel like ****. :/
uh not really, maybe it's just you
<Editor>
Show more awards
There is a massive skill difference in diamond 3+ d4-5 is nothing like diamond 3+ so I'm going to have to say Diamond 3 is what I consider the start of high elo and diamond 1 is on another level, which I hope to reach D:
London is one hour ahead of the rest of England -Luther3000
RaNuD
<Member>
<Member>
The question here could have been "What are the criterions you use in order to define high ELO"
The data we gathered here doesnt provide us any tangible basis for a reasoning(ex: changing the guides labels), because the answers are clearly biased by the user's understanding of the question. Dont take me wrong, everything in the world is biased by your understanding, but there are means to mitigate this effect. One of them is using clear definitions.
So, what are your criterions?
-Is it simple a mathematical question? Then, what are the numbers? ex: anything < 15% is high enough? Or maybe 5%?
-Or is it about competitive play? If so, when you say competitive, do you mean "could hold it against pro players", or do you mean "they would definitely stand a chance in local tournaments"?
Using gold to label "high ELO" should sound somewhat legit to most 87% of the player base, not counting non-ranked players. I think it is quite a good label then. Now, I did play quite a few gold games with my duo partner, we honnestly arent that great as players, yet we are disturbed by the basics knowledge a lot of players seem to lack. Admittedly, it is nothing close to high playstyle standards. The ELO is still damn high.
TL;DR Should "high ELO" refer to world wide competitive play? I think not. Breaks down to maths IMO.
The data we gathered here doesnt provide us any tangible basis for a reasoning(ex: changing the guides labels), because the answers are clearly biased by the user's understanding of the question. Dont take me wrong, everything in the world is biased by your understanding, but there are means to mitigate this effect. One of them is using clear definitions.
So, what are your criterions?
-Is it simple a mathematical question? Then, what are the numbers? ex: anything < 15% is high enough? Or maybe 5%?
-Or is it about competitive play? If so, when you say competitive, do you mean "could hold it against pro players", or do you mean "they would definitely stand a chance in local tournaments"?
Using gold to label "high ELO" should sound somewhat legit to most 87% of the player base, not counting non-ranked players. I think it is quite a good label then. Now, I did play quite a few gold games with my duo partner, we honnestly arent that great as players, yet we are disturbed by the basics knowledge a lot of players seem to lack. Admittedly, it is nothing close to high playstyle standards. The ELO is still damn high.
TL;DR Should "high ELO" refer to world wide competitive play? I think not. Breaks down to maths IMO.
In a thread about his own ban,
In a thread about toxic players,
gabpin wrote:
stfu I only did that : swearing and thats why i got ban are u ****** or something ?
In a thread about toxic players,
throatslasher wrote:
Go be a whiny baby elsewhere. Find and abuse the ignore button. No sense stinking up this forum with your crying.
imo Plat V+
Thank you jhoijhoi, Keondre, LaCorpse, The_Nameless_Bard, Arcana3, Apfeljack, Hogopogo, eddie199, Xiaowiriamu, and JEFFY40HANDS for the spectacular sigs!
I considered high elo to be plat and above.
Then played there for a while and realised.
NOpe. Still ******ed.
Then played there for a while and realised.
NOpe. Still ******ed.
Want a guide destroyed? reviewed?
Diamond 3 and above is what I consider high elo. I've personally experienced playing vs plats and I have to say even tho I'm a nooblord the skill difference between me and them wasn't significant. (I prob just got really bad players or it varies from server to server).
If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
Totallynotn00b wrote:
I considered high elo to be plat and above.
Then played there for a while and realised.
NOpe. Still ******ed.
Yeah, but all the plats you play with and against would **** all over golds / silvers / bronzes. That's why I consider plat to be high Elo. They're the best... just not the best of the best.
My opinion...
Bronze - Cares only for self, self fails.
Silver - Cares only for team, team fails.
Gold - Cares only for game, game fails.
Platinum - Cares only for team, team wins.
Diamond - Cares only for self, self wins.
Challenger - Cares... wait, nevermind.
Bronze - Cares only for self, self fails.
Silver - Cares only for team, team fails.
Gold - Cares only for game, game fails.
Platinum - Cares only for team, team wins.
Diamond - Cares only for self, self wins.
Challenger - Cares... wait, nevermind.
Personal habitual activites? Utilizing gargantuan idioms to fabricate intelligence.
"It's a colloquial shorthand that means the paradigm exists because of how the game works mechanically. Hence, "the Meta." Stop being a useless pedant." - PlayGooYa
"It's a colloquial shorthand that means the paradigm exists because of how the game works mechanically. Hence, "the Meta." Stop being a useless pedant." - PlayGooYa
You need to log in before commenting.
platinum players are terrible
high elo starts at diamond IV
*has 2 accounts stuck in diamond 4*
c: