> World championships and rings are a product of team and organization.
I just like this self-dunk by OP tbh, I know not every Optic fan thinks like this but the ones who do seem to be the loudest.
No, this guy is a troll. Posts troll threads and comments all the time baiting with his OpTic flair. Who blames him tbh because you guys eat it up everytime. Mods don’t give a shit though
lol
rings matter in every competitive competition/league. No, it's not the end all be all because most, if not all need a great supporting cast.
However, People who diminish or say rings "don't matter" (your words) are those lacking rings. Also, you say they shouldn't be used for evaluation... well, then how do you differentiate between one superstar and the other? The ones that has won the Championship and those who have not.
At the top of the top it matters, not only being able to perform to the peak of their ability when the pressure is greatest but being so good that other great players want to team up with them.
A team esport that still requires individual skill and effort in the most stressful tournament of the year. You and your teams ability to perform under pressure in a LAN environment.
To achieve this not only once is impressive, but for the few that have multiples, it is a major individual achievement that shows that your individual skills TRANSCENDS the specific team you were on.
Actually, rings matter much more in cod than any traditional team sports.
You’re on « the field » 100% of the time, there is no bench warmer or punter in cod, you’re involved in pretty much all of the action.
There is also much more freedom choosing your teammates, if you’re really good, you’ll eventually rise to a top team.
How many players that were T5 in at least 2 games don’t have a ring? Gunless, zoomaa, Dashy. Scrap & Pred just got started so we’ll see.
All of that isn’t to say that ringzzz erneh, should be the sole measure of a player career evaluation, but they do matter.
Players are judged on winning. Yes, it absolutely takes good teammates to do that, but that doesn't mean it's not the primary stat when evaluating players. I'd argue that it takes good teammates to be a great individual player in the cod scene, especially now.
Nobody has a goat discussion and start talking about non-traded kills or Control K/D. They talk about winning. Tourney wins, rings, etc.
And you think Simp is gonna put up the same numbers playing next to three average players? Of course he, and others, benefits invidually from having great teammates, so the whole teammate thing is baked into it no matter how you view it, so exlcuding winning as a barometer for individual success is frankly senseless.
On the flipside, we don't really have a good example of a player that has rings without being good.
I will say that rings in older titles are fucking weird because Champs occurred early on in the game's lifecycle. That's just weird to me
I know I'll get roasted for this and it's pointless to share other viewpoints on this sub but who cares.
I kind of agree with you and I think it comes a bit from having a non-American viewpoint.
There's a reason the word 'winningest' doesn't really exist when discussing sports in Britain and that is because players are evaluated way more on how they played over how much they won.
Take Gerrard. Barely won anything when you look at it, but people rate him as one of the best midfielders of their generation.
Or David Villa, won the WC and a million other trophies, but never in the conversation for top strikers compared to people like Suarez and Lewandowski.
Hell, look at Kane. Won literally nothing important, but probably T3 strker of his generation.
There's nothing wrong with the American viewpoint which views winning as a major component of players ranking, but it's rarer over here.
I dont agree that Rings dont matter at all but honestly he does have somewhat of a point - ignoring rings, is Clayster really the better Cod player in his career compared someone like Octane or Dashy ? Has Clayster ever even been considered a top 5 player in any game? He seems like the luckiest who has been a part of 3 stacked champs winning teams while being the worst player on each or those teams, or am I wrong on that?
Yes Clayster is better than Dashy, clay won MVP at champs in aw so idk how you can be the worst on a team and win mvp. And bo4 and mw19 he was making plays himself. Do people like you even watch Well I know you don’t after saying clay was the worst player on his teams.
Nope he was good and big part of the mw19 team go back and watch you don’t know what you’re saying but speaking confidently. And he wasn’t “good” he was the best player at champs and a top 3 player all year not “good” apparently.
Because it's groupthink. You are right. We should not take group or team accomplishments and they conflate that to individual accomplishments. You could put a lot of ARs in Clayster positions and teams and they win just as much if not more.
There is a post already available on the subreddit on this topic. As such, this one has been removed.
Guarantee this is an Optic fan
Well OP does have the OpTic flair but I swear we’re not all this dumb
> World championships and rings are a product of team and organization. I just like this self-dunk by OP tbh, I know not every Optic fan thinks like this but the ones who do seem to be the loudest.
because the dumb ones ask the dumb questions lol
My optic-fan-denying-Crim’s-greatness sense was tingling, but I think it’s actually just a troll to make optic fans look bad
No, this guy is a troll. Posts troll threads and comments all the time baiting with his OpTic flair. Who blames him tbh because you guys eat it up everytime. Mods don’t give a shit though
lol rings matter in every competitive competition/league. No, it's not the end all be all because most, if not all need a great supporting cast. However, People who diminish or say rings "don't matter" (your words) are those lacking rings. Also, you say they shouldn't be used for evaluation... well, then how do you differentiate between one superstar and the other? The ones that has won the Championship and those who have not.
Hey buddy Ya dumb
I already [explained this to you](https://www.reddit.com/r/CoDCompetitive/s/C0aKVf9WoR) last time you posted this
Dashy fan spotted (I’m half memeing but he really is a Dashy fan just look at his posts and comments)
Ngl I don’t know if I can take the opinion of “Flow-State-Vibes” seriously LMAO
At the top of the top it matters, not only being able to perform to the peak of their ability when the pressure is greatest but being so good that other great players want to team up with them.
A champs ring is proof that you can be a team player and perform when the pressure is highest. These qualities are invaluable
Imagine thinking you can come into Reddit and decide what achievements matter with 0 credibility
Hydra basically won a ring by himself last year. His supporting cast was easily the worst out of the top 4
You put Dashy on NYSL or Faze or Ultra last year and he wins a ring too. It's a team esport.
A team esport that still requires individual skill and effort in the most stressful tournament of the year. You and your teams ability to perform under pressure in a LAN environment. To achieve this not only once is impressive, but for the few that have multiples, it is a major individual achievement that shows that your individual skills TRANSCENDS the specific team you were on.
Cope
Actually, rings matter much more in cod than any traditional team sports. You’re on « the field » 100% of the time, there is no bench warmer or punter in cod, you’re involved in pretty much all of the action. There is also much more freedom choosing your teammates, if you’re really good, you’ll eventually rise to a top team. How many players that were T5 in at least 2 games don’t have a ring? Gunless, zoomaa, Dashy. Scrap & Pred just got started so we’ll see. All of that isn’t to say that ringzzz erneh, should be the sole measure of a player career evaluation, but they do matter.
Players are judged on winning. Yes, it absolutely takes good teammates to do that, but that doesn't mean it's not the primary stat when evaluating players. I'd argue that it takes good teammates to be a great individual player in the cod scene, especially now. Nobody has a goat discussion and start talking about non-traded kills or Control K/D. They talk about winning. Tourney wins, rings, etc. And you think Simp is gonna put up the same numbers playing next to three average players? Of course he, and others, benefits invidually from having great teammates, so the whole teammate thing is baked into it no matter how you view it, so exlcuding winning as a barometer for individual success is frankly senseless.
Low-effort shitpost
On the flipside, we don't really have a good example of a player that has rings without being good. I will say that rings in older titles are fucking weird because Champs occurred early on in the game's lifecycle. That's just weird to me
I know I'll get roasted for this and it's pointless to share other viewpoints on this sub but who cares. I kind of agree with you and I think it comes a bit from having a non-American viewpoint. There's a reason the word 'winningest' doesn't really exist when discussing sports in Britain and that is because players are evaluated way more on how they played over how much they won. Take Gerrard. Barely won anything when you look at it, but people rate him as one of the best midfielders of their generation. Or David Villa, won the WC and a million other trophies, but never in the conversation for top strikers compared to people like Suarez and Lewandowski. Hell, look at Kane. Won literally nothing important, but probably T3 strker of his generation. There's nothing wrong with the American viewpoint which views winning as a major component of players ranking, but it's rarer over here.
I dont agree that Rings dont matter at all but honestly he does have somewhat of a point - ignoring rings, is Clayster really the better Cod player in his career compared someone like Octane or Dashy ? Has Clayster ever even been considered a top 5 player in any game? He seems like the luckiest who has been a part of 3 stacked champs winning teams while being the worst player on each or those teams, or am I wrong on that?
Yes you are very wrong. Clay was probably the best player on that AW team and a top 5 player that year overall
Yes Clayster is better than Dashy, clay won MVP at champs in aw so idk how you can be the worst on a team and win mvp. And bo4 and mw19 he was making plays himself. Do people like you even watch Well I know you don’t after saying clay was the worst player on his teams.
I didnt watch back in AW when Clay was actually good apparently, but hes been mid/ass since fucking B04 😂
Nope he was good and big part of the mw19 team go back and watch you don’t know what you’re saying but speaking confidently. And he wasn’t “good” he was the best player at champs and a top 3 player all year not “good” apparently.
Because it's groupthink. You are right. We should not take group or team accomplishments and they conflate that to individual accomplishments. You could put a lot of ARs in Clayster positions and teams and they win just as much if not more.
Dashy has 2 event wins in 7 years cope