22nd May 2022, 12:52 AM
Heyo Colind, here are my honest thoughts, not just on what Bazooka wrote but also my deeper perspective.
Personally, I have always found it ridiculous and very ironic that the highest ranked players in PR2 have always been those who hardly play the game itself, whereas, in any competitive game, you'd expect the highest ranked players to represent the top echelon of skill. And this does genuinely frustrate me, and others, on some level. I have always wanted the players such as myself who have continually pushed the limits of PR2's physics to receive the greatest recognition from the community-- but instead that recognition often went to who holds the highest ranks.
This disconnect (rank /= skill) is pretty accurately represented by you and AlphaZ, as Bazooka hinted at. There is no traditional skill required to reach the top ranks. In fact, every moment you actually play the game, a necessity to improve your mechanical skill and knowledge of techniques & strategies, you lose out on valuable exp. Then again, a minimum amount of stat points are required to perform advanced techniques & strategies. So, as a metric of skill, rank is mostly meaningless but should slightly correlate (as Camer mentioned, and I mostly agree).
Thinking about all of this, the whole thing is very very silly. There's so much more to PR2 than your skill level. PR2 is a beautiful diverse game that we as a community enjoy in many different ways-- whether casual fun, social interaction, level creation, advanced modes like traps and frusts, or gaining rank via simming/macroing.
I'd guess this is about more than the rank /= skill debate. I see how it would feel awful to dedicate several years to a game you love, accomplish something meaningful to you, and then be insulted and degraded for it. You, Colind, and AlphaZ too, absolutely deserve recognition, since what you've accomplished has taken massive amounts of time & effort that I know was driven by your love for PR2.
Personally, I have always found it ridiculous and very ironic that the highest ranked players in PR2 have always been those who hardly play the game itself, whereas, in any competitive game, you'd expect the highest ranked players to represent the top echelon of skill. And this does genuinely frustrate me, and others, on some level. I have always wanted the players such as myself who have continually pushed the limits of PR2's physics to receive the greatest recognition from the community-- but instead that recognition often went to who holds the highest ranks.
This disconnect (rank /= skill) is pretty accurately represented by you and AlphaZ, as Bazooka hinted at. There is no traditional skill required to reach the top ranks. In fact, every moment you actually play the game, a necessity to improve your mechanical skill and knowledge of techniques & strategies, you lose out on valuable exp. Then again, a minimum amount of stat points are required to perform advanced techniques & strategies. So, as a metric of skill, rank is mostly meaningless but should slightly correlate (as Camer mentioned, and I mostly agree).
Thinking about all of this, the whole thing is very very silly. There's so much more to PR2 than your skill level. PR2 is a beautiful diverse game that we as a community enjoy in many different ways-- whether casual fun, social interaction, level creation, advanced modes like traps and frusts, or gaining rank via simming/macroing.
I'd guess this is about more than the rank /= skill debate. I see how it would feel awful to dedicate several years to a game you love, accomplish something meaningful to you, and then be insulted and degraded for it. You, Colind, and AlphaZ too, absolutely deserve recognition, since what you've accomplished has taken massive amounts of time & effort that I know was driven by your love for PR2.
