I know this is a fluff piece but the framing bugs me.
While getting an ace may not be an everyday occurrence for most players it’s not some exceptionally rare achievement and the impressiveness of it really depends on the skill level of the opponents and the circumstances in which it occurred (ie: less impressive against a full eco).
Watching the video her aim and reaction speed is very poor and not dispelling any stereotypes of older people (I am not claiming these stereotypes are true, but this is not a counter-example).
We also see her Silver 1 rank displayed briefly which is the lowest possible rank in the game. This means that she is in the bottom 4% of players rather than “better than most of you”.
Why is it not enough to just hear about a 76 year old gamer and be happy they’re enjoying themselves without trying to misrepresent them as exceptionally skilled?
Why do we have a videogame news site reporting on a twitch stream clip posted to reddit written like a 90’s news paper article on this new “information super highway”?
isn’t rank more of a function of time investment than skill?
thats how it is in every other ladder.
its not like the highest ranked players are really the most talented. they’re the ones who have played more ranked matches than 99% of players. aka the poopsockers.
no, CS is a boomer game where the ranks sort-of actually mean something.
isn’t rank more of a function of time investment than skill?
The ranks are just names given to ranges of player ratings.
Ratings are calculated with a system similiar to ELO which adjust a player’s rating with each result weighted according to the ratings of the opponents and potentially some individual performance metrics. This is a zero sum system so playing more games does not increase the rating in of itself, consistently winning games againt near or higher rated players does and losing lowers the rating.
Time investment is only relevant with respect to needing a minimum record of results for confidence in the rating (in counterstrike you do not receive a rank until this is met) and to the universal rule that it takes time investment to develop skill.
This is or something similiar is how all competitive ladders that I am aware of work.
The only scenario I can think of where the top of the ladder are not the most skilled players are when a game community is divided with the official ladders being shunned by skilled players such as the insular starcraft pro scene who essentially never played online (there is an interesting reason behind this I should make a post about) or CS1.6 and CSS pros and proam almost exclusively using ESEA. This isn’t something you really see in modern games though as the matchmaking systems have now become somewhat figured out and standardised.
Damn, I feel like I’ve lost my edge in my 30’s, but she still kicking ass.
if she’s so much better than me why is she a decrepit 76 instead of a spry mid 20s
For sure better than me. I fucking suck at fps games
Meanwhile mid twenties me is saying damn i dont have the reflexes to compete with those damn kids anymore
she’s got good aim
