UKF on Life Support

Did I say it was your playercard?

In fact, I ask someone who plays 1v1 to get to the top of the 4v4 ladder, with a picture of a scarecrow to show that it doesn't matter at all, because the strength or weakness of an argument does not rely on who speaks the argument.

Instead, you post a playercard of someone who isn't top 1v1, and who simultaneously isn't top 4v4 either.

Did I say it was your playercard?

In fact, I ask someone who plays 1v1 to get to the top of the 4v4 ladder, with a picture of a scarecrow to show that it doesn't matter at all, because the strength or weakness of an argument does not rely on who speaks the argument.

Instead, you post a playercard of someone who isn't top 1v1, and who simultaneously isn't top 4v4 either.

Except hes top 3v3 in an arranged team with me...

Thats the whole point.

Two good players and one terrible player made it to the top of the 3v3 ladder.

So, I've been simultaneously top of the 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 ladder at some point in the game.

Strawman or not, the point you made earlier about 3s and 4s requiring "skill" that you have yet to define is still in contest, as proven by this photo.

well.... I don't like counting AT... I played with a couple guys and was on a 38 win streak.
Random Team is a lot more difficult in my opinion

Two good players and one terrible player made it to the top of the 3v3 ladder.

Strawman or not, the point you made earlier about 3s and 4s requiring "skill" that you have yet to define is still in contest, as proven by this photo.

This is just getting funnier and funnier.

1) You still think 4v4 takes individual skill compared to 1v1s and 2v2s. What are these "skills"
I've made the claim that individual "skill" , such as APM and map awareness, is irrelevant. Otherwise, CPU expert would be the lead balance authority and Adolf Hitler would have been more correct than Albert Speer.

This is the entire fucking point of this discussion. Being ranked X on the leaderboards, knowing the scatter values behind tank Y or having APM of Z/minute are all irrelevant to the strength of your argument. 90% of this shitstorm began because you attempted to discredit Northweapon's arguments based on his "skill" (whatever that is, because you reject my definitions), his faction preference and his leaderboard position. And then I pointed out that this was not a valid counter argument.

UKF has not been underpowered the past few patches, far from it. I would know that because of what OCF and my ladder rank has taught me. You're clueless.

You are the definition of a person relic should ignore. Most of your ranks are hidden, you haven't played anything apart from USF and Brits this patch, yet you feel the need to go on the forums and be the loudest, mere days after a patch.

I ignore the majority of 3v3+ players because none of them have any idea what they are talking about. Again, you play one faction 90% of the time, why should anyone give you the time of day?

There is no reason that you can't disagree with him. However, none of this addresses any points he has made. A simple, civil, non-hostile response explaining why his statistics do not support what he claims they support is the only way to discredit his argument, not attacking his player rank and faction preference.

"I played 1v1s and I know that you're wrong because I know" also is not a sufficient response.

So if the majority of good 1v1 and 2v2 players are playing all factions fairly equally, and team game players aren't, where is the validity in their argument?

The validity (or lack thereof) in their argument, Dusty, is the fucking argument. Not the person who makes the argument.

Until you are able to view arguments and disprove them on the merit of the evidence provided, and not on the person who made the argument, there is no point in having a discussion, as the argument is lost or won before it is made.