|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 8, 2008 17:09:33 GMT -5
That's not entirely true. 'Master Warlock' originally referred to six specific players, and there *was* common agreement on those exact six warlocks. Taliesin's first quote actually describes this: at that point in time there was a very sharp demarcation between said players and everybody else. This actually happened when ExDeath was active and before I began playing Warlocks, but it wasn't as if there was some huge declaration of it.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Nov 8, 2008 17:36:37 GMT -5
Before Refuge 'Master' was a common way to refer to outstanding warlock. There was no common agreement on if the exact warlock is Master or not. Later with Refuge forums opened, Slartucker introduced forum 'Master Titles', he did set up accordingly to his common sense and basically everybody agreed his choices was appropriate. Ahh, OK, I hadn't really read that before... It still seems a bit 'up in the air' though at this point as to who is a master and who is not, and whether or not there is in fact an actual 'master' around today... If Slarty introduced Master Titles before and most everybody agreed with them, and since recently has changed those titles ( and most everybody agrees with that as well, except for one ), then it would seem that most everybody would agree that there is not currently even 1 warlock at this point in the game deserving of the title, 'Master Warlock'. I assumed that winning the tournament would qualify a warlock for that title because you are not only dominating most everybody in the game by winning the tournament, but you are also winning against some of the very elite in the game as well. But I guess someone could make a case that that still isn't enough, and the very term, 'master' or 'master warlock' or whatever I suppose can mean different things to different people. I noticed one thing that Dubber had said in 'Master Popular Vote' that I hadn't noticed before... FWIW, one cannot achieve master status through consta-para. Sure, high ELO and excellent win/loss ratios can be achieved - but FFF stringing is just an over reliance on one particularly over-powered spell. (IMNSHO, of course) My question to that is: what difference does it make? Saying that a warlock's strategy makes them an invalid candidate for master status even if everything else is good like 'Elo' and 'game domination' is totally irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Nov 8, 2008 17:56:08 GMT -5
So, essentially there are two senses to the 'master' term.
One sense is historical, and it describes someone who rose to the same heights of domination as Pig, Tchichi, Taliesin, et al. This is the way the phrase had always been used until recently.
The other sense, that some people here have started using, is limited to the present tense, and describes someone who currently and actively dominates the active player list in such a way. However, there is currently nobody who the term would apply to in this sense. Beating everybody once is a far cry from dominating everybody consistently. There are several players who could potentially reach that status in as little as a few months, I think, but they aren't there yet.
The 'master warlock' term -- even originally -- was used in the first sense. This is clear from the fact that nobody debated whether or not Pig deserved it, but at the time the term came into being Pig was not on the same tier as the other five masters.
However, since the term no longer applies to anybody in the second sense -- and this is a new state of affairs in the past year or so -- I thought it was worth recognizing this.
There is an argument to be made -- I'm not sure I agree, but it can be made -- that because the level of strategy has gone up so much for the community as a whole, that it is unlikely we will see anyone rise to that level of total domination again.
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Nov 8, 2008 18:33:12 GMT -5
There is an argument to be made -- I'm not sure I agree, but it can be made -- that because the level of strategy has gone up so much for the community as a whole, that it is unlikely we will see anyone rise to that level of total domination again. It's funny, that was exactly what I was thinking about as I was reading the tail end of this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by succat on Nov 8, 2008 19:12:45 GMT -5
There is an argument to be made -- I'm not sure I agree, but it can be made -- that because the level of strategy has gone up so much for the community as a whole, that it is unlikely we will see anyone rise to that level of total domination again. It's funny, that was exactly what I was thinking about as I was reading the tail end of this discussion. I said something similar a while back in the thread, "So Is Anyone Else Tired Of.." : Could a Master dominate everybody now? Or would a Master get evened out by the Apprentice Masters and thus become an Apprentice Master himself? I'm not suggesting that more players 'sucked' back in the old Eras, I'm just wondering if a lot of the players now who have been playing 'forever' have essentially all balanced each other out and leveled the playing field more, thus making it harder for 1 or 2 Masters to soar above the rest. Purely hypothetical... I wasn't around in the old days of course, but it seems like the game was still being 'figured out' back then or something, but now I don't know if there is much more figuring out to do. Not to say that someone couldn't become a Master again, just that it will be tough.
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Nov 9, 2008 15:58:51 GMT -5
Beating everybody once is a far cry from dominating everybody consistently. Very true
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Nov 9, 2008 16:51:11 GMT -5
There is an argument to be made -- I'm not sure I agree, but it can be made -- that because the level of strategy has gone up so much for the community as a whole, that it is unlikely we will see anyone rise to that level of total domination again. I think this could be true, but more because the level of discussion has gone up than the level of strategy itself. Even with Warlocks University back in the day people didn't talk openly about the "best" secrets until they'd used them on lots of people and they were more or less common knowledge. With high-rated players (Tali, Slarty & ExDeath at least, maybe others) who are good enough to know what they're talking about and who have nothing to gain by keeping information back, it would be less easy for one top player to keep the rest of the tiers back with a whip... ... Of course, that's not to say it's impossible. *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Nov 10, 2008 8:55:00 GMT -5
I thought this thread was terminated? Now where is that "Lock Thread" button...
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Nov 12, 2008 17:44:20 GMT -5
First off:
Ask John Kerry about THAT one.
Second:
I don't remember "coining" anything - but if it was in fact my coinage, I'd be SOOOO happy to rescind it. TOTALLY.
A lot of this comes from the tension involved with the "new blood" around here. For months, there have been players who have been dying (almost literally) to get into a ranked match with one of the Masters (now Old Masters), only to be rebuffed.
Now you come in and say that these Masters (now Old Masters) are "Old Masters" unless they prove themselves to be current Masters (or "New Masters") against what is shaping up to be the next generation of Masters ("Green Masters", perhaps?).
Personally, I think the Active Player list speaks for itself, and we should just strip all titles of the word "Master" and replace it with something more neutral, like "Cheese-eater".
|
|
taliesin
Ronin Warlock
Grand Master
Posts: 156
|
Post by taliesin on Nov 17, 2008 8:10:11 GMT -5
I can understand ExDeath's original point. In chess, those who attain Grandmaster status do not lose that status in their declining years. If "Master" in Warlocks were to operate similarly, current form would be irrelevant. However, we have an imbalancing factor in that no new "Master" has been created in years and none of the old Masters are both active and dominating. In chess, the best (currently active) player in the world is automatically a GM; in Warlocks, however, the qualifications have traditionally been sketchier as there have been periods with few strong players present. If "Master" is to remain relevant to the current generation, it must have requirements that the current generation can meet. If a year passes with no Master warlock being either dominant or created, then the title becomes a mere historical curiosity. And this year we have seen exactly that. Cast an eye over this snapshot from December 25th last year. web.archive.org/web/20071225200748/http://games.ravenblack.net/players?order=&showidle=1ExDeath, you have played exactly one competitive game since that snapshot last December. Slartucker, you've played no competitive games at all. Tchichi has been active, but his ELO has sunk rather than risen. We have but scant evidence to prove any case that the current breed are inferior to the old; that no Master has been announced is an anomaly, one that looks unpleasantly like the older generation being unwilling to gracefully accord the new their dues. If we are to create a new, formal title then we need to clearly specify its requirements. The historical requirement of a distinct ELO and skill gap between the Masters and everyone else is not robust. It poorly handles the case of declining Masters and nearly-Masters. Surpassing 2000 ELO would be one clear and simple criterion for giving a title. It would exclude Pig, unfortunately, but I can't imagine that would trouble him much, wherever he is now - and the standard of competition was absurdly easier in his day. Many players have surpassed 2000 in recent times, however, which may or may not indicate some form of inflation over the era where the very best were barely touching the mark - so either the mark of recognition may need to be nudged higher, or we will have to resign ourselves to the title becoming that much more common than "Master" ever was. I think we need to have some further discussion on this, and I'll start a thread on the subject to establish what support there is for the most basic premise - should there be a continuing title associated with merit, or not? For now, however, I find "Old Master" not in the least offensive. To be associated with Raphael, Michaelangelo and the greatest artists of the Renaissance suggests a timelessness to past competitive achievements that "Master" on its own does not.
|
|