Inigo wrote...
Pandr wrote...
Honestly, there is never "the best". This title is just a tag that people use to describe those who they think are "the best". This title is always opinionated. Even using statistics, you still wouldn't be able to prove that one player that no one can defeat. Everyone's imperfect for one reason or another. There is no such thing as "the best", only better.
I don't get what you mean by "you still wouldn't be able to prove that one player that no one can defeat". Of course nobody is invincible, the "best" (by my definition) is the player that gets defeated the least on average, and has the least flaws. There's always a best player, it's just extremely difficult to see which player that is without months/years of results. People will always have differences in opinion, but there is always a best player, whether you know it or not.
I also don't understand what you mean by "There is no such thing as "the best" only better." By that logic, couldn't there be someone that is "better" than everyone else?
Sure with years of research and tests you may be able to prove who is least flawed. But there are countless other factors involved in determining who to label such a person as "the best". Factors like type of computer they use, frames, type of peripheral they use and much more. There's just so many (maybe even too many) uncontrollable factors involved when trying to search for such an answer, unless you put everybody in the exact same settings, you can't pinpoint precisely who's "the best". What I'm trying to say here is that since the method you use to determine who "the best" is will never be perfect/have flaws, there will never be such a thing as "the best".
"couldn't there be someone that is "better" than everyone else" Using logic, if we say that someone is better than everyone else, we assume that they are the best, correct? While that may be true, there has to be a certain point when we realize that there's no such thing as boundaries. That's what I mean by there is no best, only better. Take technology for example. Technology will only get better. Assuming humans won't become extinct in the near future, humanity will only further it's development into more evolved technology. The point here is that as
time progresses, "the best" would be surpassed. Danteh may be the (so called) best PvPer now but who knows, with
time, someone else might come along and defeat him.
Here's another example if you still don't understand: Imagine you were to start counting from 1 by 1s every 5 seconds for the rest of your (assuming you never died). You will never stop counting since there will always be a number that's better than another. Sure you might say that we have a number that's higher than all others or "the best" aka infinity but can we really define infinity as a number? How bout infinity + 1? Again, with time, there will never be "the best". Only better.
The counterargument here is to say that we should use "the best" as a tag that defines who's the least flawed in this measurement of time (day, week, month etc). That we can temporarily identify who's "the best". While that may work, my first paragraph pretty much sums up why this wouldn't work.
Hope that helps clear things up and I'm sorry if the number example confused the shit out of you.
