Damage, captures, and defends are pretty insignificant in comparison to the large scale things that happen in a match, with damage being the least important as it is often just a result of what takes the most skill--the real deciding factors of who wins.

I'm not talking about UVs, or specific armor types, or even the heart of the cards. In fact, "individual skill" is a petty, worthless concept that everybody should take with a grain of salt because individuals and tryhard lone rangers don't win many games. I'm referring to spatial control, and one of these days I'll write an extensive guide covering the concept, because players often get the wrong idea that the higher their statistics are, the better player they are. Obviously the numbers do represent a certain amount of effort given, but that doesn't mean you won because of them.

-Enemies respawn fairly quickly, so bragging about your damage is like the U.S. Mint bragging about the amount of money they've printed.
-Aggressive cappers are probably more worried about harassing the other team by going cap-to-cap and avoiding conflict. This can be a useful thing, as it forces the enemy to react to you, but if the rest of your team isn't in sync you won't be very effective.
-High amounts of defenses are good but these are also often just a result of spatial control, so individual skill level can't be based off of a team effort.

Also, it should be noted that I'm not particularly interested in your "special snowflake" scenarios where 1 player won an entire match for his team of idlers or some stupid sensationalized crap. If you want to find the average of something, you ditch the outliers(if in this case they're even true and not just exaggerated stories).

tl;dr you guys don't even know this game if you argue over the worth of statistics

@ Everyone. Before you can decide what terms mean you are NOT SKILLED, please decide what defines skill. Then you can say everything that does not meet those conditions is "unskilled".

You also must decide a hierarchy of what makes you more skilled like this:

Eg.

Auto-targeting= -5 Skill
Each capture = 2 Skill
Every 1k damage = 1 skill

The above is fully hypothetical and you, the community must decide this. When this is (never) done., you can decide who is most skilled depending on how you do in a match ad you can compare.

I am not dumb and I realise this will never get done due to people arguing. I am trying to be civil like the OP states to be unlike some of you.

Seriously.. What makes you think that some unknown noob will change something.

AT is for noobs and your lame opinion prove it. Only a handless noob defend the feature

@sppw I think at least 30% of SK know and hate Feller.

Err. 50% know, and 30% know and hate like you said.

I never claimed I hate feller. I shall not state my opinion on that.

If you believe 30%/80% of SK know him, where is your evidence to back it up?

.

I have never heard of Feller until recently. I watched him on spectator mode, and he actually sucks. He moves just like everyone else, and his UVs are the best. With his UVs, he should be making at least 30k damage. I can make 24k damage easily with no UVs, but Feller has ASI, double heart pendants, and secretly uses AA but can only make 12k damage? lol pathetic

*brings coke and sits near contri*

It should be noted that part of skill is avoiding damage too(which in and of its self isn't conducive to getting high damage). As a good friend of mine and I used to say back in the heyday of WoW battlegrounds, going 10-1 is just as good as going 20-2.

In fact it would be nice to see a K/D ratio in LD next to the raw numbers so you could see guys that werent getting top numbers but steadily getting many killing blows while maintaining a very low rate of deaths.

~Luke

Sooth sums it up perfectly. CLOSE THIS THREAD!! :D

Yes. Getting high damage = skill in getting high damage. Winning games is a different story, but when all is said and done, who cares about that?

Really, though, if you think about it, there comes a point at which trying to win games either becomes boring or a waste of time(for everyone up top with a VH stick). Winning games gets you a place or two up on the board which resets every week and a few extra crowns and coins. At some point, that becomes worthless to a given player - winning becomes worthless. The only other thing by which to measure one's e- is damage, an indirect measure of one's ability to win 1v1s and to not die.

I personally advocate neither side of the argument, as I discovered a while back that this is a game and I'm supposed to just have fun with it.

My answer: No.

While damage is only a number, it does mean something. Skill can mean a lot of things, but a big deciding factor is HOW somebody gets their damage/caps. If someone just goes with recon cloak and just caps, is that person skilled? I don't think so. Similarly, getting out your op damage bonuses and running straight into fights for damage isn't necessarily a show of skill. Finally, I think a skilled person can use strategy and COMBINE it with gear, damage, and caps to truly help their team. Basically, damage is just information on how someone played the last match.

But a better question is,"Can someone use damage to measure their skill?" My answer to that is yes. A player can compare their performance with what they think is a good damage score, and therefore measure it.

Also +1 to the dude above: Tehepicwin-Science