Last active last week
Can play prot/fuse. I speak English and know ~10 words in French/German so I excel at all banter.
This thread is far more positive than I expected.
I love you all and will be sending each and everyone of you flowers.
Up. Looking like I can play this month. Will likely be rusty for the next week or so.
Note: #4 is most important. You can have the worst micro in the world, but if you play conservatively and are on the right spot on the map, teammates will completely overlook (or, in many cases, fail to notice) poor execution, provided you are winning and/or meeting guild expectations of winning.
This simple strategy has earned some players multiple gold capes :).
In all seriousness, I mostly jest about the poor micro and am exaggerating to make a point, but I do think it's accurate that people will remember the tactical side of the game much more than the efficiency of your skill usage.
Your objectives as a player are also partly determined by the talent-level/composition of your team. Take Awowa, for instance, who very rarely used and sometimes never even brought guardian. Since [rawr]'s builds often neutralized 8 v 8 pressure builds, he had the luxury of focusing on catching spikes and cleaning frontline. Dealing pressure was a relative (to other top monks) weakness of his game - and even moreso a weakness of three pound's game - but it wasn't a skill they really needed. Somewhat similarly, someone in Ali's position is going to have the luxury of being able to focus more on cancel-casting than other monks due to a routine advantage in damage/tactical/build advantage (note: not saying Ali isn't amazing at everything else, he is :)).
Or even take the flag position for a guild like OvO (and its many iterations). From a micro perspective, the vast majority of monks could satisfy that role and the team would win at a comparable rate. A significant portion could probably micro better. But they have enough carriers at other positions (e.g. Ali on Prot) and a constant advantage in team damage, build selection, and tactics that there are heavy diminishing returns when it comes to player micro at that role. Basically, what they needed out of that role was someone who could follow damage, communicate with the team, and play consistently and conservatively enough to avoid throws. This has been the case for other guilds over the years.
In a lot of contexts, all of the nuances we talk about - guardian usage, cancel casting, weapon swapping, energy management, skill usage/efficiency - functionally take a back seat. It doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to do those things; only that your perceived worth as a player won't be as bound to them as we might like to pretend.
I do think it's botting.
Please rewatch the video at the below timestamps and focus on the called out characters. The common theme is that a 1/4 second cast, a fast cast or a cancel cast has just ended when Math's character cancels its rupts.
3:26 - Alex (Prot) - Spirit Bond finished cast
5:13 - Odine (Fuse) - Patient spirit finished cast on himself
For those confused as to whether it was the flagger or Odine who cast the first PS, you can see a second PS animation appear on his head a second later without Odine going into cast animation
07:38 - Odine (Fuse) - Patient spirit finished cast
9:17 - Alex (Prot) - Fast Cast RC finished cast
9:48 - Alex (Prot) - Cancels RC (then Math hits at 9:50 a guardian at half cast with PB)
9:58 - Odine (Fuse) - Patient spirit finished cast
10:56 - I don't really understand this one. Math cancels a PB against Odine's (Fuse) SoR.
10:58 - Odine (Fuse) - Infuse finished cast
Thanks for doing further investigation. If people don't find the video highly suspicious, then I seriously question your motivations.
@JornF Rainy you do know this alex kid had been playing with botters since his name has been seen in the gvg scene. He has no credibility and his accusations about others botting will just be tossed out the window.
I am aware of who he is, but I see no reason why his character or credibility is relevant. It would be one thing if he provided no evidence and we had to rely on his words alone. But the evidence here isn't what he's saying; it is the video he recorded and brought to our attention. Unless someone is making the argument that he doctored the video or it is facially irrelevant, then I see no way in which his character/actions bear on its validity.
To reason by analogy (and conceding, for the sake of argument, Alex is not credible): it's a bit like a crazy person finding a fossil of a dinosaur, showing it to scientists, and claiming this is evidence that dinosaurs exist. The ultimate determination of the hypothesis "dinosaurs exist," will inevitably turn on the fossil itself, not the characteristics of the person who found it.
Here is what I find compelling about the video and why I believe the presumption should be in favor of Math botting (note: this does not necessarily mean I believe he botted):
Basically the principle is: if there is only one explanation for engaging in action X, then X must be done for that reason.
Example if this would be a court case, I bet you wouldn't get sentence based on this.
I am not so sure. At least in the US, courts often use burden-shifting when it comes to the evidentiary burden. The risk of any circumstantial evidence is that it does not rule out alternative explanations. In this case, since cancel casting rupts is such a bizarre practice, I personally (and at least one top mesmer - our expert witness) see no other reason why someone would cancel-cast rupts outside of botting. A court would therefore be more likely to rely on this kind of evidence.
This is a strong prima facie showing of botting that would shift the burden to the accused to show that there was another reasonable explanation for the cancel-casting. If Math can enlighten us on why any seasoned mesmer would engage in such an inefficient practice then he very well might meet his burden. But, in an actual court room, a Spongebob meme reading "I don't give a fuck," isn't a very compelling defense :).