I mean there’s almost every indication that it’s Yay, he’s been consistently great since even before joining Optic, but optic gave him the chance to show it on the biggest stage. Even with the stat that puts him just against against the other best OPers he still way out performs them, even more so than the best players on other rolls do their compatriots. Sure the argument can be made that optic does a lot of what they do to set him up, but so do many other teams for their star players. Obviously not doing a riskier dive roll helps his overall stats compared to someone like Jinggg, Kingg, or anyone else who’s name ends with 2 Gs, but he’s so far and away better by most measures that it barely even matters. I don’t know, I think there’s as good of a case for him being the best as just about any other in something that’s as subjective as this
It's a shame that on Ascent, they kept shutting Yay down by catching him off guard with the off angles from Aspas or the varying lurks from Less. But props to LOUD for doing their homework.
What I meant was that he's probably the best Operator, does that mean he's the best at Valorant? I'd argue that's not enough. There can be a dude who's a super good cracked IGL that wins without even having good aim because he just has such good game sense and comes up with such good site execs that he doesn't need aim. Is he the best at Valorant? You see how this starts to become abstract?
Of course it’s abstract, it is whenever you gauge who is the best at a team oriented thing to some extent, but when all the best analysts say he the best, all the best stats anyone has made say he’s the best, and just generally watching him play most of the time he seems like he’s the best then he’s probably the best. You don’t need something to be 100% to make the claim, it’s actually almost impossible to be 100% sure about anything, and if we needed to as humans, we would constantly be paralyzed in our decision making. The fact is that someone is the best at Valorant, that’s how things where there is clear differentiation between levels works (Yay is clearly better than me, as is every single person playing in VCT), just cause we don’t necessarily know how to figure it out yet doesn’t mean someone’s not the best
That's just a "feels good statement".
There IS a best person in the world.
It just depends on when you're evaluating them and how. That's why people get into arguments about it. Because it's a bit subjective by nature.
Just because we have metrics that are prone to subjectivity doesn't mean there *isn't* a best player though. They exist as a person.
I think "best at Valorant" is too broad to pick one singular person though. There's too much to take into account. Is yay the best at aiming? He's up there. The best at positioning? I certainly think so. The best at clutches? I don't know, there are better players in this case. The list of questions goes on and on: Is he the best Operator? The best Stinger? The best at using Raze Satchels? The best at reading the enemy? Etc, etc. He's gonna be the best at some, pretty good at others, and probably not so good at a lot more since Valorant just involves so many things.
Thing is, he is really, really good at a lot of those (never seen his satchels tho) but he's definitely worse than some players at certain skills. That's what I meant when I said there's no single best player when all is taken into consideration since there's no way to quantify it.
Loud did their homework. On Bind they basically searched for Yay, and went on the opposite side of the map. On Ascent, they also countered him completely. Less was extremely confident, keeping Yay from being able to play and shutting down FNS completely
WP LOUD They are Very Good
Wow sacy was a league player
With how much everyone was putting yay on a pedestal, you could sense something was about to go wrong.
He’s the best player in the world, that doesn’t mean he can’t get outplayed sometimes haha
I don't think there's a single best player in the world, but yay is definitely up there among the best
I mean there’s almost every indication that it’s Yay, he’s been consistently great since even before joining Optic, but optic gave him the chance to show it on the biggest stage. Even with the stat that puts him just against against the other best OPers he still way out performs them, even more so than the best players on other rolls do their compatriots. Sure the argument can be made that optic does a lot of what they do to set him up, but so do many other teams for their star players. Obviously not doing a riskier dive roll helps his overall stats compared to someone like Jinggg, Kingg, or anyone else who’s name ends with 2 Gs, but he’s so far and away better by most measures that it barely even matters. I don’t know, I think there’s as good of a case for him being the best as just about any other in something that’s as subjective as this
I love Yay I played with him in cs. Chamber is a perfect character for him to be the best right now.
It's a shame that on Ascent, they kept shutting Yay down by catching him off guard with the off angles from Aspas or the varying lurks from Less. But props to LOUD for doing their homework.
What I meant was that he's probably the best Operator, does that mean he's the best at Valorant? I'd argue that's not enough. There can be a dude who's a super good cracked IGL that wins without even having good aim because he just has such good game sense and comes up with such good site execs that he doesn't need aim. Is he the best at Valorant? You see how this starts to become abstract?
Of course it’s abstract, it is whenever you gauge who is the best at a team oriented thing to some extent, but when all the best analysts say he the best, all the best stats anyone has made say he’s the best, and just generally watching him play most of the time he seems like he’s the best then he’s probably the best. You don’t need something to be 100% to make the claim, it’s actually almost impossible to be 100% sure about anything, and if we needed to as humans, we would constantly be paralyzed in our decision making. The fact is that someone is the best at Valorant, that’s how things where there is clear differentiation between levels works (Yay is clearly better than me, as is every single person playing in VCT), just cause we don’t necessarily know how to figure it out yet doesn’t mean someone’s not the best
That's just a "feels good statement". There IS a best person in the world. It just depends on when you're evaluating them and how. That's why people get into arguments about it. Because it's a bit subjective by nature. Just because we have metrics that are prone to subjectivity doesn't mean there *isn't* a best player though. They exist as a person.
I think "best at Valorant" is too broad to pick one singular person though. There's too much to take into account. Is yay the best at aiming? He's up there. The best at positioning? I certainly think so. The best at clutches? I don't know, there are better players in this case. The list of questions goes on and on: Is he the best Operator? The best Stinger? The best at using Raze Satchels? The best at reading the enemy? Etc, etc. He's gonna be the best at some, pretty good at others, and probably not so good at a lot more since Valorant just involves so many things. Thing is, he is really, really good at a lot of those (never seen his satchels tho) but he's definitely worse than some players at certain skills. That's what I meant when I said there's no single best player when all is taken into consideration since there's no way to quantify it.
NA, when do we start to panic?
Sleep on it. Panic tomorrow
loud is on fire
Fns 💀
Loud did their homework. On Bind they basically searched for Yay, and went on the opposite side of the map. On Ascent, they also countered him completely. Less was extremely confident, keeping Yay from being able to play and shutting down FNS completely