What constitutes a “top player”?

[EMPEROR_KNICKS]

I talked to some people about it, it all depends on ur definition. If you think that a person needs to place consistently to be a top player and make top 8 at majors in order to be considered one, then thats fair. If you think that its a person who can beat a top player on any given day and they do well when they go offline. Ive talked to some people and generally the first one is the one people tend to go with.

 

[dribirut]

Completely different from what it was 3-5 years ago. Too many good players now:
All the following players are great:
Tekken master
Madzin
Nivek
Foxy
Theo
Sonic
Dragon
Forever king
Bio
Honeybee
Gunshow
Hayatei
Nubcakes
Buffalo
Illusions
Grr
Reo
Rewind
Semij
Tsunami
Tweedy
Han rashid
Pl
Toxin
Whiteboi
Dab
Gross
Silverrye
Knicks
Happypow
Slayer
Raptor
Deoxys
Scar
Starcharger
Revet
Yungmonster
Omega
Coach Steve
Ducky

That's 40 right there and I'm sure I'm missing a shitload of other great players

 

[Ragnarök Tyr]

Personally I'd say anyone who can consistently make Top 16 & higher could make a case for themselves.

 

[Tokiwartoothxdk]

@B. Shazzy

 

[CrimsonShadow]

- At first I thought a top player was someone who consistently placed in major tournaments. But I think the quality of competition is far greater of a measuring tool than the prestige of a tournament and the quantity of opponents. What I mean by this is, if your local for instance has 30 top players including players like Dragon, SonicFox, Theo, Whiteboi, REO, etc etc, and you’re winning a lot of these or doing very well consistently, that’s just as valuable as getting top 8 at majors. Just as valuable as far as being considered a top player.

If your local has 30 guys who are placing Top 8 at majors, then your local is basically a major.. So you may as well just say you're still placing Top 8 at a major.

There's never been a local like this though -- where you had to beat all Top 8 players in order to make Top 8. So probably not so realistic of a situation as to be useful here.

Also you have to be careful about subjective criteria. What makes you, for example, put REO alongsie people like Dragon and Theo in a list for Injustice 2? (Obviously meaning no disrespect to REO, as he's talented and has proven that in 3-4 different games now). You have to take care not to play favorites, even with regard to players that we know were good in previous games.

'Top player' can't be based on potential, subjective evaluation of talent, past games, locals, Twitter hype, or anything else. Results are really what matters at the end of the day.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

The consensus so far seems to be “consistent top 8’s”.

So, let’s say player X wins EVO. EVO is the only major tournament he has been able to attend. He constantly wins sets against other top 8 placers. He consistently wins his local, or gets top 3, that has several “top 8 placers”. With EVO being his only major top 8 and win, does this mean player X isn’t a top player? If the only criteria is consistent top 8’s at majors, player X doesn’t fit that criteria.

Also, how many majors does he have to get top 8 in? Every major he attends? 10 majors? 5 majors?

Traditionally EVO is given more weight than a typical major. But it's a temporary status grant. Meaning that winning EVO would catapult you into being a top player -- but if you get bodied at every major afterward, you don't keep that status indefinitely just because you won EVO.

The EVO bump might last a few months, but after that you've got to prove yourself again if you still want to be considered top.

 

[Flamelurkr]

I like this.

There is definitely a difference between being a "top player" and a professional "top player". I'm sure there are people who are extremely good at playing this game but don't go to the tournaments for whatever reasons they have.

There are guys I've seen on YouTube like Akromaniac and SoulWarrior 71K (and others) who are absolutely phenomenal but don't participate in tournaments, yet I consider them top players.

Here's another point or two, to add to the conversation---

1) If you have to point yourself out that you're a top player, are you really a "top player"?? If you're really good at what you do (no matter what it is in life) people already know this. To me, this automatically questions one's legitimacy if that person has to point to themselves.

2) In the big scheme of things, if you're bragging about yourself, who honestly gives a FU#% if you're a top player or not? Nobody asked!!!

I've practiced with a few people from here like @Flamelurkr and @Wyntword and had a great time fighting against them and getting solid advice to further myself (trust me, playing with them has made me grown as a player in this game). When I first came here, @Juggs was nice enough to welcome me here and gave me solid advice on picking characters and lead me to a website about the FGC since I'm relatively new to this.

I've even PM'ed a few more people recently like @JDE and others to widen my "circle of friends" because I've enjoyed reading their past posts.

My point is I'd rather enjoy this game (hence why I bought it) and get advice from cool people who play the game well, as opposed to getting advice from a so-called self-described "top player". I'm here to learn from this website and hopefully make a few Injustice2 friends and have a good time (which I am).

Sorry for the rant; just my 2 cents on the matter.

Down this weekend?

 

[Roy Arkon]

Both @Ragnarök Tyr and @CrimsonShadow were on point here. I think it's safe to say that as long as you make it to at least Top 16 or higher consistently then you're a Top player. Of course if you don't make it once, but then you manage to make it there again, you're still a Top player. One miss doesn't take you off the Top.

 

[Thundergodd]

Down this weekend?

Gotta work the weekend. Maybe in the afternoon, if I get off. I'm off today on Friday. You see me online, just holla.

 

[GLoRToR]

This topic was spawned in another thread. The argument was whether or not certain people were “top players”. So we don’t derail that thread further, I wanted to make an actual thread for the discussion.

This reminds me a lot of “what constitutes a major” and also is related somewhat. People actually have different definitions for what a top player is, and consequently different criteria that a player must meet in order to achieve the “top player” status.

- The first thing I feel makes a top player is that it’s a player who can perform well consistently against any player in the world. This doesn’t mean someone who can beat everyone always, not at all. But someone who can realistically hold their own no matter who they’re facing.

- Another aspect of a top player to me is a player who can do well under pressure. Namely in tournaments where a lot is on the line. This isn’t a huge factor, because there’s a lot of players that I know who are some of the best players in the world, but they just choke when it comes to competing in tournaments. That said though, the best out there can adapt and overcome the nerves and pressure.

- At first I thought a top player was someone who consistently placed in major tournaments. But I think the quality of competition is far greater of a measuring tool than the prestige of a tournament and the quantity of opponents. What I mean by this is, if your local for instance has 30 top players including players like Dragon, SonicFox, Theo, Whiteboi, REO, etc etc, and you’re winning a lot of these or doing very well consistently, that’s just as valuable as getting top 8 at majors. Just as valuable as far as being considered a top player.

I propose this question. Which is more impressive as a player. Winning 5 locals with 20 out of 32 players being top players? Or getting top 8 at 2 majors that had only 3 top players out of 100? Both are great accomplishments, but again to me, quality of competition means much more than the prestige of the tournament or the overall number of entrants.

I think some people reserve the term “top player” only for players like Dragon, SonicFox, Theo, Slayer, Tekken Master, Forever King, etc who can travel to most majors and consistently make top 8. To me, I don’t think being a “top player” is that exclusive. While those players are definitely top players, they are among the absolute best in the world. Which again, some people feel that’s the only people worthy of being called top players. For me, I always just saw it as a player who can beat the absolute best on any given day, or any given match, because they’re simply good enough to do so.

Anyway, I’d love to hear everyone’s opinion on this. Y’all can blow me up if you think I’m dead wrong, I just think this is an interesting topic.

Differs by community.
In some games' communities it's not just placement, it's contribution as well, from tech to helping others get better at the game. I'd like to see more of that in our community too.

Here it's placement and the other top players / commentators saying so, mostly.

 

[IrishMantis]

Rather than define what is a top player you need to look at where the threshold is for "Top" placing top 8 a mlone as you say is maybe not enough since everybody travels to the same tourneys but at the same time you don't want to release the threshold too low as top to me represents the cream of the crop. These are THE guys to beat and any can take a tournament.

Consistent top 8 players probably is a good indicator or if a tourneys much more prestigage or Stacked it's fair to lower the threshold.

Look at this way usually when nobody denies somebody is a top player is usually a good indicator to say said person is definitely a top player as silly as that sounds,

I used to linger on this back in the day on how can I get people to call me a top player, now I don't give a fuck and will just Mop them in anyway

 

[Juggs]

Obviously there’s not really a right answer, it’s subjective. But it seems like there’s mainly two definitions/criteria.

- A player who can compete with anyone at any time. (Someone who can beat any pro player ((SonicFox, Dragon, Theo, Foxy)) because they’re good enough to do so)

- A player who makes top 8’s at majors consistently

The only issue I have is with the term “consistently”. What does this mean in this context? Everh major they attend? If that’s the case, what if they only attend 1-2 majors? Is it a certain number of majors? If so, how many majors does a player have to get top 8 in? And if the number is 4 for example, what if a player has traveled to 15 majors and only made top 8 4 times? Are they still considered a top player??

 

[Thundergodd]

Obviously there’s not really a right answer, it’s subjective.

This.

 

[Marinjuana]

Just because it's subjective doesn't mean you can't viciously argue about it! It's like arguing Lebron or Jordan is the best, except in a case where's there's arguments for both sides.

 

[Roy Arkon]

Obviously there’s not really a right answer, it’s subjective. But it seems like there’s mainly two definitions/criteria.

- A player who can compete with anyone at any time. (Someone who can beat any pro player ((SonicFox, Dragon, Theo, Foxy)) because they’re good enough to do so)

- A player who makes top 8’s at majors consistently

The only issue I have is with the term “consistently”. What does this mean in this context? Everh major they attend? If that’s the case, what if they only attend 1-2 majors? Is it a certain number of majors? If so, how many majors does a player have to get top 8 in? And if the number is 4 for example, what if a player has traveled to 15 majors and only made top 8 4 times? Are they still considered a top player??

About the consistency question, as I've said, I believe that you need to make it to at least Top 16. Top 8 is a bit too harsh to be the minimum. So in that it means that you need to make it to Top 16 at least at almost every event you, if you miss one event or don't make it to Top 16 once in while, you don't lose your status as a Top player. Consistency, at least in my book, replies to keep the goal at least 80% of the time. 100% of the time is once again, too harsh.

This is just my 2 cents on the matter.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Obviously there’s not really a right answer, it’s subjective. But it seems like there’s mainly two definitions/criteria.

- A player who can compete with anyone at any time. (Someone who can beat any pro player ((SonicFox, Dragon, Theo, Foxy)) because they’re good enough to do so)

- A player who makes top 8’s at majors consistently

The only issue I have is with the term “consistently”. What does this mean in this context? Everh major they attend? If that’s the case, what if they only attend 1-2 majors? Is it a certain number of majors? If so, how many majors does a player have to get top 8 in? And if the number is 4 for example, what if a player has traveled to 15 majors and only made top 8 4 times? Are they still considered a top player??

Consistently just makes they have a good chance to make it at each major they attend.

If someone is making Top 8 at 50% of the majors they attend, I don't think you'd have an argument against it.

If someone makes Top 8 and then gets bodied for 5 majors in a row, it's not quite a convincing statement for them being a top player.

 

[Belial]

Just as "top tier character" this is mostly subjective
Top player is defined by two things
1) Criteria of "top" of person passing judjement
2) Players ability to fit this criteria

Just as with characters people usually consider "top player" someone who is often represented at top X in tournaments. X, by a consensus, being 8.

Just as with characters higher placings improve your position as "top" and lower placings diminish it. Placing top 3 is better than placing top 8. thus if criteria for "top player" is percieved by someone as ability to place in top3 of a major (or a MAJOR major) his evaluation of top player will shift.

Another option is being accepted by other "top players" (experts) as a top player, despite not placing in tournaments, as expert opinion generally hold a lot of value to commoners.

TLR: there is no true formula of "player skill". "Top player" is usually defined by ability to place top 3-top8 at majors, but can vary still.

 

[Juggs]

Bump. Tried to link this thread on twitter to Slayer, but it wouldn’t work for some reason.