'etc'

Almost all of the top/upcoming aimers in this day and age are the fast/flicky/snappy type. EX: Verno Primmie Nightz Cane Something Alfajer Oxy Mada Flashback etc

The calm, very precise type like Less Elite Aleksandar, Old yay, etc seem to be a dying breed

.

Shopify Rebellion

TSM > Plug

YFP > TSM

Rankers > YFP

Therefore: Rankers > 100T

They've pretty objectively been the better team based on recent results

kinda crazy to think about

Potential for a banger

wasn't even nervous for a second

neon and an E-dating duo where one is clearly boosted

If trash talk actually gets to you, you are soft and not cut out for any competitive activity

IGNORE THIS POST FOR NOW

90D

• Neon
  1.43 R
  320 ACS
  1.63 K/D

• Raze
  1.31 R
  277 ACS
  1.53 K/D

• Jett
  1.54 R
  297 ACS
  1.93 K/D

• Yoru
  1.63 R
  306 ACS
  2.16 K/D

• Reyna
  1.45 R
  284 ACS
  1.93 K/D

Common Riot L unfortunately

yay is duoing with him rn

NRG easily

Also trick is definitely right, getting banned from competing (literally career changing) because you afk'd in a tdm or called someone stupid in game chat is insane.

Especially when we got pedo's and wife beaters running around in certain leagues with no problem

we serving beef on thanksgiving 😈😈😈

💯

People used deathmatch to actually practice gunfights

PLS RIOT NERF THE SOUND OR DO SOMETHING TO FIX THIS GAMEMODE ITS ALMOST UNPLAYABLE

Oxy

clove neon iso reyna yoru

irons have the best mental cuz they know they're not good and don't care

I smurfed in it once with my friend and we went knife only and you can make the most egregious throw and after the round they'll just type 'nt'

Ascendant

Remember last year when Fnatic almost lost to a random japanese team during the offseason in a bo1?

https://www.vlr.gg/283091/fnatic-vs-fennel-red-bull-home-ground-4-r1

If they had lost that probably would have been the greatest upset ever

100T have now basically done that but in a BO3

Its now probably between:

100T vs Trust in Plug
NRG vs BLG
Liquid vs TS

north korean nuke

if*** he could play other agents at a high level besides the one he has 3000+ hours on and has been playing exclusively for years

huge 'if'

By how likely they are to end up in T1 in the future

1. Canezera - Can already play hard entry, is arguably the best aimer on the team (either him or nightz), is still very young, and apparently is doing all this on 60 ping. His future is bright if he dedicates himself.

gap

2. Poppin - He can shoot and hardcarry on initiator, which is very impressive. So far has only played Sova/Skye, but at least that shows potential on the recon init/flash init roles

3. Nightz - He has the aim but his biggest problem is agent pool. He kinda only plays the 'ranked' agents (Clove Iso Yoru Reyna). Atm can't hard entry. His best bet would be to transition into an aggro sentinel, kinda like an alfajer type player. It's not a guarantee that if he did that he would be successful

4. Inspire - people don't like playing with him, and his 'peak' isn't that high. Imo he's good enough to be decent in t2, but not enough for T1

5. Eggster - He plays one agent. Even in ranked.

nightz is supposed to play, idk about cane

ez 4 rankers

Hard disagree with just about everything you said

P0PPIN is a known streamsniper so no

Well he's not sniping in challengers, and he's doing just about as good as the rest of them, on Sova/Skye too. You could make a real case that out of all of them he's the one that can make the best transition to actual organized play and is most likely to get picked up by a real challengers team. Personally I think he's their 2nd best player

Nightz1x and Canezerra has crazy aim but I think Nightz clears Cane in terms of understanding the game better.

Regarding Nightz, I think his aim might be slightly better but he literally only has a 'ranked' skillset. Like he can only really play Clove Iso Yoru Reyna.
Cane is a much better hard entry (jett raze neon). I also don't think ego swinging smokes and taking ridiculous fights is indicative of a high level understanding of the game.

Eggster can definitely play Tier 1 if he chose not to one trick Yoru. He has the skill and the talent.

Not gonna pretend ur being serious here

Inspire has the experience but needs to just aim better and not tilt.

'just aim better'

His experience from the last 2 years:

• the current Rankers Run (made it past groups stage after real challengers basically ended)
• subbed one game for TSM in RBHG qualifier
• the lil bro cup
• the G4 rumble

Yap Warning

Alot of people are getting the relationship between rank and talent wrong imo, especially since Rankers' run through challengers so far

Ranked is a loose indicator of talent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets look at the posterboy of rank = t1 talent, Primmie : https://tracker.gg/valorant/profile/riot/Scooby%20dooby%20doo%23wheru/overview

Of course, primmie is a t1 level player/talent, but the problem is when people say that we knew that from how good he is in ranked (#1 every act, insane tracker, etc). You can not infer that because he's good in ranked, that that makes him talented enough for T1. The relationship is the opposite, it's because he is talented that he is so good in ranked

And this condition does not always hold. Not every good player is good in ranked, not everybody good in ranked is good at pro play (more commonly).

Let's look at EG Nature : https://tracker.gg/valorant/profile/riot/EG%20NaturE%23RAT/overview

Wow, look at that, an absolutely insane tracker. 1200+ rr peak, 941/1000 TRS, 1.34 K/D, S tier every stat, 76% winrate, all while locking initiator (sova/breach/fade)

But in pro play, he's not even considered a top player in t1 play, even amongst igls, or even mechanically amongst domestic 'fragging' igls (Kingg, Valyn, Johnqt, Rossy all clear)

Now lets look at t3xture, arguably the best duelist in the world, and a Masters MVP : https://tracker.gg/valorant/profile/riot/GEN%20t3xture%239999/overview

Good, but nothing crazy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what is the relationship between rank and talent with regards to pro play? As previously mentioned, its very loose, but I propose a simple system

T4 - If you can consistently hit imm2 or higher in ranked if ranking up was your only objective , you have enough talent to be a T4 Player. This does not mean hitting that rank makes you a T4 player, but that you have enough talent for that level of play.

T3 - If you can consistently hit bottom radiant or higher in ranked if ranking up was your only objective, you have enough talent to be a T3 Player. This does not mean hitting that rank makes you a T3 player, but that you have enough talent for that level of play.

T2 - If you can consistently hit top 150 Radiant or higher in ranked if ranking up was your only objective, you have enough talent to be a T2 Player. This does not mean hitting that rank makes you a T2 player, but that you have enough talent for that level of play.

T1 - It does not matter how good you are in ranked. You should be able to hit top 50, but other factors are much more important in determining whether or not you are T1 capable. (Experience, understanding of the game, understanding of your role, etc)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it that rank does not matter much for T1 consideration? Because contrary to common belief, there are actually a good bit of players who are not in t1 who have better mechanics than most t1 pros (ex: Geeza - currently a collegiate player)

Primmie and Karon are the EXCEPTIONS. Does anybody here think that if Poppin was picked up to a T1 team that he would be in consideration for GOAT of his role within his first year, like Karon? Please identify yourself if you think so.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This of course isn't to say that rank means nothing. RANKERS, composed of 4 notorious ranked demons + inspire, made it to Challengers Playoffs with no practice. But keep in mind this is literally the best of the best when it comes to pug stacking. 4 of those players have been getting to rank 1 consistently these past few acts. What they've done is very impressive, and does show that rank is an indicator of talent, just a loose one.

banh bao and spaz

Meteor

Knights Ban

he would also average a 3.0 rating if he played in GC 😭

I can't say i'm the world's expert on reaction times, but it seems to me there's 2 distinct questions

1. Is there a sex based difference in reaction times?

There is probably a small, but measurable difference.

2. Does this constitute an insurmountable advantage that requires separation for the purposes of fairness like most traditional sports (Track, Weightlifting, Swimming, Basketball, etc)

Almost certainly not

im with you on basically everything

but Sliggy did deserve his spot on that grid

Hard to make a broad statement on all of society. I'll say even by vlr standards op's arguments are bad (confusing figure 4 from study 2 to be related to reaction time is a pretty unforgivable mistake if you want to be taken seriously)

I'd say overall it's not too bad except for two areas:

News/Politics: If you see a news article that is trying to push a political agenda of any type (very common), be very careful with whatever stat they throw at you, because 1. Journalists aren't very good at stats. and 2. It's famously easy to twist data to fit a narrative.
As an example, there's a notorious stat/study that suggested that having a gun in your household made you much more likely to get die to one. Purely Statistically it's true, but it turns out that one of the reasons people get guns in the first place is because they live in sketchy areas where they are dealing with gun violence.

Social Studies Research: In particular, the paradigm of Null-Hypothesis-Significance-Testing (NHST) got so butchered over the years in the social sciences (psychology in particular), that one journal banned it and the American Statistical Society had to make a statement on its proper use.

Outside of those two areas its not too bad.

Firstly, I should start by saying I don't think think there is a meaningful biological advantage, and further still, I don't even think GC should exist at all

But as someone who does this stuff for a living, i felt the need to chime in because you're not drawing your conclusion from ultra-sound reasoning

Study 1

You did get the basic ideas right but your conclusion is kinda off. The study itself has a section on gender which sums it all up neatly:

A review of the literature on the influence of gender on RT shows that in almost every age group, males have faster RTs as compared to females, and female disadvantage is not reduced by practice.[13,14,15] Researches done by Misra et al.[16] also showed that males responded faster than females. Study done by Shelton and Kumar,[11] Nikam and Gadkari[17] also reported similar findings to support females have longer RTs than males. The results of our study [Table 2a] agree with these studies and indicate that male medical students have faster RTs when compared to female medical students for both auditory, as well as visual stimuli. In our study when sedentary male and female medical students [Table 2b] were compared removing any confounding factors, RTs of male students were faster; thereby further supporting the evidence that males have faster RTs than females.
The male-female difference is due to the lag between the presentation of the stimulus and the beginning of muscle contraction. It is documented in the literature that the muscle contraction time is the same for males and females[18] and motor responses in males are comparatively stronger than females,[19] this explains why males have faster simple RTs for both auditory as well as visual stimuli. Nowadays the male advantage is getting smaller, possibly because more women are participating in driving and fast-action sports.[19] This is evident from Table 2c in which nonsignificant differences were obtained when regularly exercising male and female medical students were compared.

So yes, they did in fact find a non-significant difference between regularly exercising men and women. But notice that in the discussion of gender, the conclusion was not that there is no difference, but that the male advantage is 'getting smaller', purportedly because of driving or fast action sports (a hypothesis for another time). You shouldn't draw the conclusion that the authors think they proved that there is no difference at all between 'fit' men vs women, but that their results are in line with the existing literature that established a shrinking (to what extent?) difference under certain conditions. They conclude in pretty clear terms:

Male medical students have faster RTs as compared to female medical students for both auditory, as well as visual stimuli.

It should also be noted that the samples for the 'fit' men vs women test was much lower (literally n=4 for the women) compared to every other test.
And yes, I am well aware that statistically speaking there isn't anything necessarily invalid about this (if you look at the history of the T-test it actually was developed for small samples), but it is something to keep in mind.

The bigger problem though is that your application of this to Valorant, which sort of relies on the assumption that professional gamers are a category of people who live an active lifestyle. Even if there a couple here and there.. I don't think it's a reach to say that it's actually the opposite in the vast majority of cases (very sedentary).

Study 2

The study itself notes that their result isn't in line with a previous study, and suggests that it's because of the way they measured reaction time:

A possible explanation is that, in the present study the reaction time is defined as the time between the moment that the L3 AV system issues the takeover request and the moment that drivers have completely switched to the manual driving position, which is the position where the drivers have put their hands on the steering wheel, feet on the pedals and eyes on the road. Before the moment that the L3 AV detects the stationary red vehicle and initiates a takeover request to the drivers, it was performing automated driving and the drivers were performing the non-driving related task (reading) and were completely disengaged from driving. Therefore, at the moment that they were suddenly asked by the L3 AV to take over control of the vehicle, they had little information about the current driving situation. Croson and Gneezy42 suggested that, when dealing with uncertain situations, females are more cautious and less confident compared to males, which may have resulted in a slightly faster movement to switch back to the manual driving position among female participants in this study, thus leading to a faster reaction time. Moreover, another possible reason could be that, as females are found to be more concerned about automated vehicles than males33,36, their higher level of concern may have led to a more eager desire to regain manual control of the vehicle, thus they exhibited faster reactions as soon as they perceived the takeover request issued by the L3 AV. Apart from their faster reaction times, female drivers were found to have significantly smaller steering wheel angles compared to male drivers, with a significant difference of 1.41° (95% CI 0.04° to 2.78°), which reflects a slightly more stable operation of the steering wheel during the takeover process and thus indicating better takeover performance. This is in accordance with the findings of previous studies about gender difference in terms of driving behaviour. Compared to males, female drivers exhibited more cautious and less risk-taking driving behaviour, and were more patient in urgent situations29,30,42.

tldr : there's reason to believe that their results with regards to reaction time had to do with women being more cautious drivers, because their
measure of reaction time had to do with retaking control of a (simulated) vehicle and/or making subsequent decisions (i.e being quicker to turn on your indicator to change lanes - literally one of the tasks).

I also don't know where '0.022 ms' came from. I literally cntrl searched the page for it and nothing came up.
And btw, the whole 'steer + brake' thing (figure 4) isn't even about reaction time.

Study 3

I'm ngl im not about to pay money to read this. I'm just gonna be lazy and point out that it's from 1980 and Study 1 is more recent and included a literature review which ran contra the abstract presented here.

Fuck it

Paul vs USYK

Lets give the people what they want 😈😈😈

has he said who it will be yet?

quick somebody ask him !!!

potentially when riot scraps GC making GC players have an incentive to play in the open circuit and progress with their player development

so realistically never

fair

nah he actually had a really good kickoff and stage 2

even when he was in a slump during stage 1 he wasn't too bad
-----------------
just have him on duelist no?

Lemme cook

must've went to br*tain

they probably cross the cosmos to come and try some

Are they real?

Are they visiting us?

Did the US government capture a flying saucer in Roswell?

Are they storing the craft in area 51?

Is Bob Lazar telling the truth?

Did brazil capture live extraterrestrials in Varginha?

What do yall think about this topic?

We know flore is an incredible duelist and deserves a spot in vct

the literally signed him while the only duelist he could play was jett

and it was obviously his main role/agent, as he played 251/459 rounds at champs on Jett

and he had the best aim in the world

So the exact decision you said a 'conventional' team should never make won them champs

https://www.vlr.gg/248277/paper-rex-vs-evil-geniuses-valorant-champions-2023-playoffs-gf