Great moves Le poi, proud of you, keep it up.
play moreLuqanted wrote:
im still a 6 digit player kill me
play moreLuqanted wrote:
im still a 6 digit player kill me
Getting to 4 digits was easy. 3 digits is something else ._.SveltColt332 wrote:
Have fun getting to 4 digits
Well easy for you.Potet wrote:
Getting to 4 digits was easy. 3 digits is something else ._.
purogamesosu wrote:
when i reach 6-5 digit on ranks :think:
P o i wrote:
I'm probably THE worst 5-digit player judging from my solid 87% accuracy
Vuelo Eluko wrote:
A low acc player generally crushes a high acc player of the same rank in a multiplayer lobby.
Juuuuuuuuul wrote:
5 digits was 2000pp, wow
Vuelo Eluko wrote:
A low acc player generally crushes a high acc player of the same rank in a multiplayer lobby.
Around my rank, just hitting 5 digits (around 90k), like what was the op's rank, i just have to pick an AR:8 or an old style map to make these "low acc players" failling or ragequit.
Maybe around 20k rank, they just have to pick HR to win on this kind of maps, idk.
Different people, different skills.
Vuelo Eluko wrote:
Your acc is bad, you are a masher, yes, but I don't believe a high acc player could pull off the plays you did. It's a different kind of skill, but you still earned your rank.
Juuuuuuuuul wrote:
yes i understand that, and i do not say the opposite, that's not what i mean.
Of course the same pp for two plays, one low acc and one high acc mean the low acc one was a higher star rating.
Vuelo Eluko wrote:
Your acc is bad, you are a masher, yes, but I don't believe a high acc player could pull off the plays you did. It's a different kind of skill, but you still earned your rank.
As you said, "different kind of skill", both high acc and low acc players earned their rank, and if both have similar rank, they will have to pick the correct maps (or mod) to win.
And that do not mean one is "better" than the other. They're both playing differently and they both deserved their rank.
Lights wrote:
I don't understand why people insist upon generalizing so heavily. having low accuracy means you arent very good at strictly sticking to a rhythm or are playing rhythms too fast or complex for you. thats all it means. it says nothing whatsoever about your ability to aim, you can aim well and have high accuracy.
Vuelo Eluko wrote:
Lights wrote:
I don't understand why people insist upon generalizing so heavily. having low accuracy means you arent very good at strictly sticking to a rhythm or are playing rhythms too fast or complex for you. thats all it means. it says nothing whatsoever about your ability to aim, you can aim well and have high accuracy.
higher acc almost always means less stars in your top ranks compared to a low acc player.
what does less stars mean? Less of a speed/aim component. Rhythm complexity is poorly factored into difficulty if at all last time I checked, either way most people aren't having tech maps on their top ranks.
Lights wrote:
Vuelo Eluko wrote:
Lights wrote:
I don't understand why people insist upon generalizing so heavily. having low accuracy means you arent very good at strictly sticking to a rhythm or are playing rhythms too fast or complex for you. thats all it means. it says nothing whatsoever about your ability to aim, you can aim well and have high accuracy.
higher acc almost always means less stars in your top ranks compared to a low acc player.
what does less stars mean? Less of a speed/aim component. Rhythm complexity is poorly factored into difficulty if at all last time I checked, either way most people aren't having tech maps on their top ranks.
"higher stars" and "ability to aim" do not correlate. besides, if it actually meant your aim was better, you'd still have high acc on harder maps, would you not? "better aim" implies "able to play more aim intensive maps"- i wouldnt consider getting B-ranks to be "able to play more aim intensive maps". your accuracy is just a matter of whether or not you play a lot of maps that are too hard for you
Endaris wrote:
Lights wrote:
Vuelo Eluko wrote:
Lights wrote:
I don't understand why people insist upon generalizing so heavily. having low accuracy means you arent very good at strictly sticking to a rhythm or are playing rhythms too fast or complex for you. thats all it means. it says nothing whatsoever about your ability to aim, you can aim well and have high accuracy.
higher acc almost always means less stars in your top ranks compared to a low acc player.
what does less stars mean? Less of a speed/aim component. Rhythm complexity is poorly factored into difficulty if at all last time I checked, either way most people aren't having tech maps on their top ranks.
"higher stars" and "ability to aim" do not correlate. besides, if it actually meant your aim was better, you'd still have high acc on harder maps, would you not? "better aim" implies "able to play more aim intensive maps"- i wouldnt consider getting B-ranks to be "able to play more aim intensive maps". your accuracy is just a matter of whether or not you play a lot of maps that are too hard for you
As an acc player I just have to tell you at this point that Vuelo Eluko is correct about this. Accuracy is a unique skill largely unrelated to your aim ability.
My ability to play higher star difficulties is a lot lower than that of many people of significantly lower rank.
There's a very defined limit of aim difficulty I can go for and after that my ability to aim and tap falls off superhard. I like to call this "all or nothing acc" because either I can acc it or not. If I can't aim it, I can't acc it, that's a fact. Conversely it goes up to a point where I have to say that if I can't acc it, I can't aim it. That's how reading works for acc players.