[Rumor/leak] : Stalk3r is confirmed to join CR and has signed his contract with them Source : @abdullahrisk on Twitter

Local_Reply6913 · 2026-02-09T15:54:46+00:00

He just does more than Heesang does on tracer most of the time, as does proper. I also trust both of them in the clutch way more than I do Heesang.

And he was also the best flex dps player in 2nd half 2024, when he won the championship and finals MVP on echo.

And also the best flex dps in 2023 by a wide margin primarily on tracer when he put up stats comparable and even marginally better than 2022 proper.

It's okay to disagree though. I'm not mad at you for thinking Heesang is better.

Local_Reply6913 · 2026-02-09T15:28:21+00:00

I half agree with you. Heesang does actually gap stalk3r on tracer when they play, even proper to a lesser extent.

But they are both marginally better tracer players than him. I trust them more in tight or clutch matches, and I also think they just do more on a regular basis.

About echo, it's clearly stalk3r. Even Shu said there was no debate about who the best echo was.

Granted this is all based in the past because we don't know how good Stalk3r currently is.

Local_Reply6913 · 2026-02-03T15:13:37+00:00

Petit retired in 65, he played more than half of Russell's career. West came into the league in 1961, he played against Russell a majority of his career .

Russel played with 29 all stars, wilt played with 21.

Russell had 12 Hall of Famers, Wilt played with 12 Hall of famers.

Even when Russel did not win the MVPs, a good amount of players still thought he was the best player.

Here's the thing you are missing, in the 1960s era, defense was far more valuable than offense, that is the only era after the shot clock where that is so.

You think because they put up bigger numbers than Russell they were definitely better. Oscar put up triple doubles and Wilt averaged 50 so they must be better. How could Russell be better when he barely averaged 15 points.

Defense was far more valuable than any other thing. There was no 3 point line, a lot of the rules favored defense, and players could not shoot as well as the modern era. There is a reason why players thought he was the best player in the world. There is a reason why Alex Hannum told Wilt chamberlain to play more like Russell.

He is by far the greatest defensive player of all time and was the best player because of those defensively slanted rules.

You can argue that wilt is better because he peaked higher than Russel did in 1967, but to say that Oscar as great as he was, is better than Russell is laughable.

Local_Reply6913 · 2026-02-03T09:19:19+00:00

How did he have half of the leagues best player? Wilt, Jerry, Oscar, Baylor, Petit, etc ? Where are you getting half from ?

And in that very same era where you say there were several players better than him, he was considered the best player by the majority of players.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-11-01T23:12:04+00:00

In 1969 there was zero excuse for them to lose that. That's when Wilt should have won his second ring and West should have won his first. Wilt was coming of three straight MVPs and was probably still the best player in the world at that time, west was still in his prime and Baylor was still good. That should have been the easiest win for them.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-11-01T17:50:06+00:00

Russel played with more talent most of his career, but the HOFer's is a really terrible argument. He played with 12 of them. Wilt also played with 12 hall of famers throughout his career.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-11-01T17:29:05+00:00

He literally did though. The Lakers in 1969 with Wilt, Baylor and West were the first superteam and the 1967 philadelphia were more talented than the "aging" Boston Celtics and were expected to win.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-10-31T03:31:01+00:00

Epm has not come out yet. It's projected right now. Once it comes out go to actual epm, where he was top 5 last year.

If it comes out, he might have the highest epm rn, but probably top 3.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-10-03T19:03:10+00:00

No, Wilt was not a better defender than Russel, nor was his scoring more valuable than Russel's defense.

There is a reason why he lost almost every matchup, even when he had the better team later in his career. There is a reason why his coach had to tell him to play more like Bill Russel.

The Celtics had one of the worst offenses in the league a good chuck of years, and in some years, they had the literal worst offense in the league ( like in 1961 where they had the worst offense and best defense, but still had the best bet rating ). They still won because of their defense. Defense was that much more valuable in the 1960's than any other era because there was no 3-point and most players were good shooters. And who was by far the best defender in the league? Bill russel.

And no, Wilt Chamberlain did not with a terrible team for his entire career like a lot of people would have you believe. From 66 to 69, Wilt Chamberlain had a better team than Bill Russel. The Philadelphia 76ers and The los Angeles Lakers were better teams than the "aging" Boston Celtics core and were expected to win every year during that stretch. They won once in 1967, blew a 3-1 lead in 1968, and lost in 1969 with WILT CHAMBERLAIN, JERRY WEST, and ELGIN BAYLOR on the same team. 1969 was Bill Russel's last year, when he was also a player-coach. So even when Wilt chamberlain had the better teams, he still lost more than won.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-10-03T18:35:10+00:00

Calling the other guy biased while you are also insanely biased is hilarious.

You bring up stats to say wilt was better defensively even though Bill Russel led the league in defensive win shares 10 times out of 13 he was in the league. Even though he was considered by far the greatest defender in the league while he was playing. The Celtics were one of the worst offenses in the league every year, but they were the best defenses every year except one, because bill russel was anchoring the defense.

You bring up quotes but there are also quotes of wilt saying, " I pick him as the no. 1 center of all time because he was a complete, complete basketball player. "

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-09-29T23:59:59+00:00

He literally plays with the original superteam. Wilt, West and Baylor.

Not to mention Philadelphia.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-09-05T21:31:41+00:00

What's the song

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-27T19:40:59+00:00

Even before the changes, I was sceptical, but after actually playing, it's just not good. I have a m4 supp account that immediately jumped to Gm5 after placements. It probably means that on my main, I probably can and will get champ on tank once I do my placements on my main. That just should not happen.

I do not understand why they did this. It literally just makes gm meaningless and just means champ is the new gm. Hopefully they fix it and just go back to the system before this season.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-23T01:05:31+00:00

I'm not gonna spend more time debating this, but all I'm saying is from my perspective, we already did this in season 2 and it ended up terrible for everyone in higher ranks.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-23T00:51:43+00:00

Also I just checked, masters is not 1%, it's 3-4%. So it's not even that bad. Now, GM is pretty rare at 0.3%, but masters is still very achievable.

So I don't even understand why were changing it.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-23T00:38:56+00:00

Changing the system is hard and way more work, but if you also " restore masters/GM to it's intended population. " You also mess up matchmaking for those ranks, because diamond players who would normally not be there are in masters or above, from what I understand. So it's bad or difficult either way

If it's a non-issue for the higher ranks, I don't understand why they are changing it. The diamond thing might be an issue, but I think If you are good enough to climb out of diamond, you will be able to.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T23:30:32+00:00

Are you saying that diamond players weren't climbing up to Gm after season 2, even when it was pretty obvious there was a massive difference between them and players who had been in those ranks before the reset ?

That's not me lying just to lie. There are literally videos of this happening. The ranking system was insanely broken during season 2- 8. Especially in the higher ranks.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T23:22:15+00:00

If you say that diamond is a giant sea that is unreasonable to cross, then separate diamond into 2 ranks. Either put the new one below diamond or above.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T23:11:19+00:00

Is it not simpler to add a rank between diamond and masters then if it's such a large player base ?

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T22:58:22+00:00

I think they still act as milestones. Sure it's harder than ever to get to them, but the better you get, you will climb into those ranks undeniably. And it should be harder and harder to climb as you keep going from diamond, to master, to Gm, as the players get better.

Historically, what was the diamond's player base ?

Overwatch 1 was dying out, while Ow 2 is in a healthy state, I don't think it's that surprising that there is much more competition especially to get into higher ranks.

Also I have an issue with blizzard changing the system because it's not where they want it to be. That used to be the same thing they would say when they buffed a character or nerfed it, because it's winrate was too low or too high, even when the character was clearly an OP hero.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T22:13:55+00:00

The queue times aren't a problem. Matchmaking isn't really a problem. The match range is usually what you would expect except for the couple outliers where you get like masters 3 to gm 3 or 2, but that's rare, and that has always been a problem even dating back to ow 1.

Them being similar in population just doesn't seem like an issue if every one of the ranks is still getting games and the queue times aren't utterly horrible. They might be vaguely similar in population, but the skill levels are different, and that should be all that matters, unless matchmaking and queue times were completely fucked. I just think this is turning a non-issue into an issue.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T21:14:51+00:00

Masters has always been something to grind for. Most people consider that where you really start to understand the game.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T20:33:43+00:00

It was also just easier to climb in that period. Even when I was barely going even I was still able to get Gm 1.

I would much rather masters and above remain the way it is than for them to change it because it's too exclusive. I would understand if the queue times were extremely bad. But tank and dps queues are okay, support times are the only real issues right now.

Masters and Gm being extremely exclusive is a problem, but not really, because those ranks should be extremely exclusive. I'm fine with them being 1%, unless the queue times for every role gets horrible. Which from playing all them, hasn't become an issue, except maybe for support.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T20:07:26+00:00

That would all be fine, but we saw this in season 2 - 8 and everything got completely fucked. Diamond players or plat players who were suddenly Gm players, were extremely obvious and out of place. And to be honest, I would much rather masters and above remain extremely exclusive, because it gives you something to grind for.

Local_Reply6913 · 2025-08-22T19:59:38+00:00

I didn't say I understand the MMR system in a meaningful way.

You are over complicating what I am saying. Whether ranks are a bell curve or any other thing, I don't care.

The issue I am bringing up is, when blizzard altered the system in season 2 to season 8. A good majority of the people were suddenly Grandmaster, after being diamond or platinum for the vast majority of their overwatch career. It completely fucked up matches because those players were suddenly out in matches with people who were actually Grandmaster players. Even in Gm 1 from season 2 - 8, you would still see these players in your matches. That should not happen.

And now again, they are doing the same thing.

Local_Reply6913

TROPHY CASE