Skill is different than titles.

Most people think that showing titles, like masters/vct and so on will define if a player is bad or not. that's now how it works.

Let's give tenz as an example:

He's not the best player (duelist) NA
and he's not the worst bc he didn't make well on this VCT.

Sacy, Tenz, SkRossi, nAts, YAY, Redgar

Not winning a VCT or playing bad some championships, didn't make those players bad per se

Some of you don't really know how to judge if a player is good or nah.
Watch some videos, livestreams, pro-games, and then you can take a opinion

what
so watching ranked is a better way to define if a player is good than watching how he performs in international LANs?

Literally noone said that tenz is the worst in na neither the worst in vct💀

It's an EXAMPLE
bruh

If we judge players based off ranked then s0m>All

The only thing that is relevant in NA is twitch viewers

I disagree, whats the point of being a pro player if you only good at rank game but not in vct?

???
Is this a bait or are you serious?

man really saying watching videos (most likely highlights) and livestream are better way on judging player than winning tier 1 tournament

So what would you think about someone like Crimsix(from COD) or Turbopulsa(from RL) who win all the time despite not putting up the best numbers or looking like the best players on their teams? What about the guys who are just winners? The goal of competitive games is to win so how does winning not represent skill. I'm not saying that winning is the only thing that determines if a player is good or not but it's a pretty big factor. Because at the end of the day, having the best aim or best utility doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win and winning is the only thing that matters in this game.

On the judging impressiveness based on gameplay part:

The player with the most dominant looking gameplay doesn't tell as much about them as it does their opponents. That's the player who suddenly looks like a mess when put up against relatively stronger opposition. It all crumbles at that moment. Everything you thought was amazing about that player all of the sudden disappears as if they never were really that good, unless they actually are that good, which is a case of one in a hundred.

I've had many moments where I think a player is good because they looked really strong against relatively weak opponents.. But then look like absolute dogshit when they face a better opponent in the server. That's what should matter.

The games at the highest levels don't even tend to look impressive from any individual's PoV, because they tend to be evenly matched. They are constantly trading blows, it doesn't look dominant, therefore no one "looks" spectacular.

So from what I've seen, an important factor is not how they look, it's who they are playing and the importance of the game. How they look is 99% of the time a function of their opponents and not them. If they keep looking good after facing opponent after opponent, they are probably good. If they look insane because of the gameplay footage you've seen and crumble in groups, they are probably not good, no matter how you twist it.

What about mitch

wen I mean videos I mean VOD's. highlights are the most shitty information you can get from a player. esp in ranked games.

highligts on proplay are "useful" to see how a player would peform in a clutch situation with huge pressure on their back.

All pros are good, they wouldn't be a pro if they're bad lmao
but if you're talking about being the best then the only way is to win major championship

Then ShahZaM should be best player Streamer