Swkoll wrote:
Unless people know your ranking anyway, your ranking isn't good enough to change anything.
This statement is a little ambiguous. I assume that what you meant to say that:
"If you do not have a high enough ranking that people know about you, then you ought not to have input into coversations on balance or strategy".
Which, assuming I have correctly understood your statement, is exactly the kind of thing we ought to avoid. The first problem with this kind of thinking, is that you assume a correlation between rank and game knowledge. Whereas it would be more accurate to correlate rank with execution. Ranked score is a very particular kind of measurement, which is squewed to a very particular form of game. However, there are many different people, who answer questions and make comment on a wide variety of different topics. Such as tactics, strategies, late game, high tech, niche strategies, divergent game modes, economic comparisons, map making, mods, balance. Being a high level 1v1 ranked match player is not a pre-requisite for participation in these kinds of discussions. There are many people on this forum, who have very good game knowledge. Who appreciate the complexity of this game and who like to engage in these discussions. But for some reason, when it comes to execution, they do not have the APM, attention, instincts or some other habits which keep them from "professional" level play.
You also need to consider that when it comes to balance changes, the pros may have a mental dicipline which allows them to win games. But that doesn't necessarily make them good Software Engineers or Designers. They may not fully appreciate where balance changes will take the meta-game. They not appreciate the law of "Un-Intended Consequences". They may not appreciate the impact of balance changes on lower levels of play. They may become subject to "Group-Think" and one track thinking. Especially considering that problem solving often requires latterial thinking, and professional gameplay often encourages the exact opposite. They may be "professional players", but, that does not make them "professional problem-solvers".
You should remember that this is a game, and as such, its purpose is for people to derive enjoyment from playing it. This therefore means that all people, regardless of rank, have an equal right to participate in discussions on what would make the game more "enjoyable". Which brings us to a central feature of critical thinking and debate. Which is that an argument ought to be assessed on the basis of its intrinsic merit. Not on the credentials of the person who made it.Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 22 Jul 2013, 07:11
]]>
