you guys make me want to gouge my eyes out

Being good at warlight requires the same skills as any other logic-based activity.

Disagreed, most templates are most of the time just beancounting.

Your opinion holds no value cata, because you, like Japanball, are a shitty player.

To speak on what it takes to be good at something, you must first be good at it.

Edited 9/11/2017 11:46:05

^

Your opinion holds no value cata, because you, like Japanball, are a shitty player.

To speak on what it takes to be good at something, you must first be good at it.

Your opinion holds no value either, because you use an ad hominem attack to strength your point. Learn to argue.

That's not ad-hominem.

Ad-hominem would be saying your opinion holds no value because your avatar is a cat and cat lovers are morons.

The fact that you need to be good at something before you can judge what it takes to be good at something is fact.

When you have succeeded, you tend to know why you succeeded. If you fail, you tend to not know why you failed, if you did, then you wouldn't have failed.

I can play you 20 times, beat you every time, and then point out the reasons you lost each game. If you were able to determine why you lost each game I wouldn't beat you 20 games in a row.

I'm not looking for someone with a peak ladder rating 600 lower than mine to try and explain to me what it takes to be good at Warlight.

You are roughly a 57th percentile player, there's more than two standard deviations separating our ingame abilities. Pointing that out, is not ad-hominem.

Edited 9/11/2017 12:16:51

This gets cringier and cringier. From whining to "I'm good at Risk", the amount of attention-seeking is beyond awful.

Telling people to stop boasting about their intelligence when they're empirically bad at something that hinges on mathematics isn't attention-seeking.

I don't care if people think I'm good, they are however bad.

That's not ad-hominem.

Ad-hominem would be saying your opinion holds no value because your avatar is a cat and cat lovers are morons.

The fact that you need to be good at something before you can judge what it takes to be good at something is fact.

When you have succeeded, you tend to know why you succeeded. If you fail, you tend to not know why you failed, if you did, then you wouldn't have failed.

I can play you 20 times, beat you every time, and then point out the reasons you lost each game. If you were able to determine why you lost each game I wouldn't beat you 20 games in a row.

I'm not looking for someone with a peak ladder rating 600 lower than mine to try and explain to me what it takes to be good at Warlight.

First thing first, you are an alt of unknown origin.
Second, if you are referring to 1v1 ladder, then you should know that rating is not everything. Not to mention, my last run was over a year ago and you dont even show off your ratings.
Third, you can know why you are failing and still fail. For me its lack of dedication, I simply dont care.
Last but not least, learn to argue. I dont know why I am argueing with someone who doesnt even recognise their ad hominem.

Edited 9/11/2017 12:25:49

Telling people to stop boasting about their intelligence when they're empirically bad at something that hinges on mathematics isn't attention-seeking.

I don't care if people think I'm good, they are however bad.

This is the Internet, we can speak our mind. Suck it up. Besides that, who says Zephyrum was reffering to you? The world doesnt revolve around you.

Edited 9/11/2017 12:29:48

First thing first, you are an alt of unknown origin.

It's 'First things first', not "First thing first". Also, don't get too hyped up, Cata, you got roasted by the guy. You're way too salty about this; it's even worse than arguing with you about the word 'America'.

Third, you can know why you are failing and still fail.

*Thirdly

For me its lack of dedication, I simply dont care.

*it's *don't

Last but not least, learn to argue. I dont know why I am argueing with someone who doesnt even recognise their ad hominem.

*arguing
*doesn't

>Says "Last but not least"
>While in reality, he didn't even have a finishing line.

xd

Edited 9/11/2017 13:43:21

Lmfao

"Second, if you are referring to 1v1 ladder, then you should know that rating is not everything."

Yeah, I'm sure it's off by two standard deviations. It totally doesn't differentiate between 2200 rating vs. 1600ish reliably. Nice meme.

You can succeed, and then know why you previously failed. Claiming to know the cause of failure before achieving success is an excuse. There's a huge difference. The former is knowledge-based, the latter is a guess and/or an attempt to save face.

I don't do better than you due to dedication. I play better when I take the time to count out opponents moves and keep track of everything they're doing, sure. I can also take 1-2 minute turns and play completely intuitively writing down nothing and calculating nothing, and still play at a much much higher level than you do.

Attacking you rather than your argument is an ad-hominem fallacy. Attacking you and your argument is not, especially not when the attack on you, is relevant.

Edited 9/11/2017 13:46:59

"First thing first, you are an alt of unknown origin."

Is this better?

Are the claims I'd beat you 20 games in a row less accurate now?

Good Kid is at it again. Wooo! Go bears!!
How was your Clan League 9 play for FCC? :-)

Edited 9/11/2017 13:57:49

It was fantastic. I spot no errors in any of my CL9 games. (Getting booted isn't an error, right?)

Edited 9/11/2017 14:05:24

It's 'First things first', not "First thing first". Also, don't get too hyped up, Cata, you got roasted by the guy. You're way too salty about this; it's even worse than arguing with you about the word 'America'.

Says the guy who got banned multiple times, swears he is not coming back, but yet returns because he cant accept it. You are the last person on this site, who should be talking about being salty.

Yeah, I'm sure it's off by two standard deviations. It totally doesn't differentiate between 2200 rating vs. 1600ish reliably. Nice meme.

You can succeed, and then know why you previously failed. Claiming to know the cause of failure before achieving success is an excuse. There's a huge difference. The former is knowledge-based, the latter is a guess and/or an attempt to save face.

I don't do better than you due to dedication. I play better when I take the time to count out opponents moves and keep track of everything they're doing, sure. I can also take 1-2 minute turns and play completely intuitively writing down nothing and calculating nothing, and still play at a much much higher level than you do.

Attacking you rather than your argument is an ad-hominem fallacy. Attacking you and your argument is not, especially not when the attack on you, is relevant.

How can you know? You never played against me.
Not to mention that the fact you felt so attacked by me that you had to use the phrase "shitty player" against me, is not a good behaviour in an argument.

Are the claims I'd beat you 20 games in a row less accurate now?

I have beaten players with similar stats than you in less than 20 tries. Why should you be an exception?

Edited 9/11/2017 14:50:14

The fact that you need to be good at something before you can judge what it takes to be good at something is fact.

You dont need to be good or succesful to spread the knowledge of the good and succesful.

Why are you attacking Cata like this Nauz, you have absolutely no reason to.

Edited 9/11/2017 15:28:02

@Min34: There's plenty reason to correct people that are speaking about topics they know nothing about.

Everyone doesn't have to be good. If you're not good however you probably shouldn't argue about what it takes to be good. Similarly is you're terrible at a game that revolves around math and logic you probably shouldn't boast about your intelligence on the forums of that very game and expect to not get called out.

"I have beaten players with similar stats than you in less than 20 tries. Why should you be an exception?"

In your 70 1v1 ladder games your best win was vs. someone with a peak of 1916, they're roughly 1 SD off of me.

In 155 2v2 ladder games you never beat anyone as good as me. Same goes for your 8 RTL games, and 15 3v3 games. I see no evidence you've ever beaten top players, but even if you have, the evidence is certainly not looking like you win such games over 5% of the time.