Player Card Worth and Community

Is ignorance an excuse?

Not really, but at least there is an explanation.

Yes, the player card does mean something. It gives a broad perspective as to the players experience in game. A lot of my balance threads back in the day were with my perspective as a large arranged teams player. Some balance issues may not be present in the small game modes and vise versa. If I had my way with coh2.org all accounts would have to be linked with player cards and all balancing threads would have to start with tags such as [4v4] [1v1] [All] to help set the perspective. Afterward, any 'l2p' like comments would get greeted with an invis. Would help clean up the community immensely and move the rubbish over to the official forums or steam forums.

Yes, the player card does mean something. It gives a broad perspective as to the players experience in game. A lot of my balance threads back in the day were with my perspective as a large arranged teams player. Some balance issues may not be present in the small game modes and vise versa. If I had my way with coh2.org all accounts would have to be linked with player cards and all balancing threads would have to start with tags such as [4v4] [1v1] [All] to help set the perspective. Afterward, any 'l2p' like comments would get greeted with an invis. Would help clean up the community immensely and move the rubbish over to the official forums or steam forums.

The playercard has no relevance at all to the quality of someones argument. Many players learn the game and the meta from streamers and replays, but neither of these things show on a player card.

Each argument should be addressed on a logical basis independent of player card. Many, many high ranked people have very little idea about unit stats and meta gaming.

You don't learn unit stats and resource ratios from playing the game, you learn those through educating yourself and taking time to theory craft on your own.

The playercard has no relevance at all to the quality of someones argument.

Yes it does

Yes it does

An argument based on unit stats, logic, and knowledge of the meta should be addressed in the context of those things.

An argument based on unit stats, logic, and knowledge of the meta should be addressed in the context of those things.

Which the playercard gives a tangible metric to measure.

The playercard has no relevance at all to the quality of someones argument.

Yes, it does. If your player card was completely empty as you didn't play the game the quality of your argument would be zero. We don't need 'theory' players chiming in about balance, we need real players who represent all of the game modes.

Someone who has reached atleast top 100 in 1v1 ladder has a much better understanding of the game than some guy with rank 2000 and think he knows the game by theorycrafting and watching streams.

Sure thing, rocket scientist with bunch of diplomas in physics and random guy from the street have equally meaningful opinion on quantum mechanics.

Playercards are not really important, unless someone talks some extremely biased shit while swearing to god to play all factions, in that case by viewing the playercard you can instantly identify fanboy warriors of one faction only(like out friend alex here).

I'm much more willing to take discussion with inexperienced player seeking help then one army megalomaniac hero seeking supremacy, playercard lets you easily tell them apart.

Also as a general rule, the better the player, the more valid the opinion simply because good players understand the game and units much better then 5 digit rank ones.

Which the playercard gives a tangible metric to measure.

No it doesn't because you get knowledge of the stats from looking them up, knowledge of the meta from streamers and other pro's, and logic is pretty self explanatory.

None of these things have any relation to player card, at all.

Yes, it does. If your player card was completely empty as you didn't play the game the quality of your argument would be zero. We don't need 'theory' players chiming in about balance, we need real players who represent all of the game modes.

If a person took the time to watch streamers, look up stats, watch replays of tournaments, and make themselves knowledgeable about the meta than chances are more than likely that they play the game a fair amount.

It doesn't take any of the things to make a logical balance argument to be good at this game, all you need is good micro and a basic understanding of the unit counter system.

Someone who has reached atleast top 100 in 1v1 ladder has a much better understanding of the game than some guy with rank 2000 and think he knows the game by theorycrafting and watching streams.

How does getting to top 100 make you aware of unit stats or meta knowledge? It means you have experience, but what it takes to be good in this game isn't in any way related to the ability to construct a logical argument.

Quentin is one of the best players in this game, and he is utterly utterly bonkers. Do you think he should be an authority on balance?

Sure thing, rocket scientist with bunch of diplomas in physics and random guy from the street have equally meaningful opinion on quantum mechanics.

The difference between a rocket scientist and a average person is multiple years in college and thousands of hours of studying. The difference between players of different skill is good micro.

Playercards are not really important, unless someone talks some extremely biased shit while swearing to god to play all factions, in that case by viewing the playercard you can instantly identify fanboy warriors of one faction only(like out friend alex here).

I'm much more willing to take discussion with inexperienced player seeking help then one army megalomaniac hero seeking supremacy, playercard lets you easily tell them apart.

Also as a general rule, the better the player, the more valid the opinion simply because good players understand the game and units much better then 5 digit rank ones.

You have made exactly 5 posts in the past 2 weeks that don't involve a personal attack on me lmao.

There is a very large difference between watching high-level play and actually playing at a high level. You can recognize issues from watching high-level play, sure, but it's very hard to fully grasp the problem and its potential solutions when you don't think like a high-level player does.

It's very telling that during the collaboration with Relic on the CoH1 2.602 patch, Kolaris was the only person seriously involved in discussions who wasn't also a high-level player. I'm talking tournament contender skill level here too, not top 50 ladder skill level. It's very rare to find a person like that, and it's usually the result of that person talking about the game extensively with high-level players. Watching and studying it alone isn't enough, because you miss crucial details that high-level players can see easily.

I used to care about Player Cards, then I realised that they are basically irrelevant.

I have it in my profile simply because I learn far more about people by how they attack you for your player-card than for any other reason:

"You don't play <game mode>"

"You don't play all factions equally"

"You are not high enough rank"

"You are high rank, but anyone who is high rank only got that way through exploits and abusing the meta it doesn't mean you are actually good"

Yes people have said all of these at one time or another.


So I prefer to judge arguments on their merits, and frankly if you are going to look down on me or anyone else because of their playercard I probably couldn't give a baboon's ball sack what you think anyway.

There is a very large difference between watching high-level play and actually playing at a high level. You can recognize issues from watching high-level play, sure, but it's very hard to fully grasp the problem and its potential solutions when you don't think like a high-level player does.

It's very telling that during the collaboration with Relic on the CoH1 2.602 patch, Kolaris was the only person seriously involved in discussions who wasn't also a high-level player. I'm talking tournament contender skill level here too, not top 50 ladder skill level. It's very rare to find a person like that, and it's usually the result of that person talking about the game extensively with high-level players. Watching and studying it alone isn't enough, because you miss crucial details that high-level players can see easily.

Which is why the replay system exists, watching someone like Sib go over your replays and discuss how you could have done things differently or suggest things to you that you may have missed.

The biggest difference between people of rank levels is micro ability (in 1's) and in team games the biggest difference between differently ranked AT's is a combination of each players skill and their ability to communicate.

The playercard is important to an extent. It roughly shows what your skill is worth, you can tell if a player is an actual good player or just a theory crafter. Just as said before, watching high level stuff is way way easier than actually doing high level stuff.

This being said, i wont to clarify that my wish isnt to exclude lower ranked players from discussions. Theyre also a part of the playerbase after all.
Im trying to say that higher ranked players generally have a better understanding of the fine nuances of the game.
A high ranked 1v1 player is more valuable in the discussion when compared to a high ranked 4v4 player, simply because 1v1 is the most competetive / balanced gamemode after all. I am also of the opinion that it requires more game sense and skill.

What i really cant stand though, is when players nitpick the playercards of others without providing theirs themselves. If you wish to criticize someone else, look at yourself first.

Which is why the replay system exists, watching someone like Sib go over your replays and discuss how you could have done things differently or suggest things to you that you may have missed.

The biggest difference between people of rank levels is micro ability (in 1's) and in team games the biggest difference between differently ranked AT's is a combination of each players skill and their ability to communicate.

But again, the disconnect between theory and application is enormous. I could look at your replay and tell you every little thing you did wrong and how to correct it, but that's not going to magically make you a better player, and it's not magically going to give you all this knowledge about the game either.

There's an amazing moment of clarity that occurs when you finally come to understand the game entirely, and it's not something you can explain or impart on others with a few words. It takes serious effort and serious commitment, and it makes a serious difference in how you perceive the game. It's not really something you can understand until you've experienced it, but it's the main reason why I shut the fuck up about specific technical matters regarding all but two of the competitive activities I've taken part in. The knowledge gap between experts and everyone else in any skill-based field is astonishing.

A high ranked person is more likely to be knowledgeable about balance, but this does not mean a higher ranked person is always a better authority on balance.

If 5/8th's of a breed of cat is black, than it is more likely to find a cat of that breed that is black. This does not mean every cat of the breed is black,

That's exactly what I said, except with the caveat that a person worth listening to on matters of balance who isn't a high-level player is extremely, extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that it took 6 years for such a person to reach that status in CoH1. I highly doubt CoH2 has its Kolaris yet.

But again, the disconnect between theory and application is enormous. I could look at your replay and tell you every little thing you did wrong and how to correct it, but that's not going to magically make you a better player, and it's not magically going to give you all this knowledge about the game either.

There's an amazing moment of clarity that occurs when you finally come to understand the game entirely, and it's not something you can explain or impart on others with a few words. It takes serious effort and serious commitment, and it makes a serious difference in how you perceive the game. It's not really something you can understand until you've experienced it, but it's the main reason why I shut the fuck up about specific technical matters regarding all but two of the competitive activities I've taken part in. The knowledge gap between experts and everyone else in any skill-based field is astonishing.

Yes but you can take what you learned and actually apply it, and you can also use said knowledge of your mistakes to recognize other peoples mistakes.

And this game really isn't deep enough mechanics wise to make the claim that there is some great massive gap between players skill levels. This game requires very good micro at higher levels across every single faction. But the unit list is far to small and the amount of strategies far to small to consider planning a real difference maker.

I do understand the feeling you are talking about, when I first got into visiting and speaking with streamers and whatnot I learned so much so fast (Thanks Sibchat!), but eventually I just discovered the only real difference between players at high ranks was the ability to micro units effectively.

A playercard does indeed show how credible a person is. Thats the real reason why anyone should ask for a playercard.