Pirate wrote:-- CUT --
I've always thought of medals as more of an indication of activity level vs. skill. It is likely that high medal players have greater skill because of more time spent, more experience, etc. but also possible that all those medals are from barfing jumps on dev bases. There are plenty of high skill players with less medals (even more now thanks to medalgate) and plenty of terrible players with tons of medals.
Yes, medals are a combination of activity level and type (sheer volume of attacks, opponents picked, frag collection), outside factors (e.g. medal gate) and skill. Possibly 70/30 with skill at 30, if you want to put a number to it. Our squad has several good players with 3 in particular, 2 at Prestige and a level 9, that have way less medals than I do. It would not shock me if they are better players than I am. I have 90K and they have 40K or less. You see the skills in wars, even without replays. The efficiency in which they dispose of opponents, how they do without Tako and Tat, etc. Head to head, I would probably beat them more often than not, but not because of skills. Because of armory levels. My levels are at least 2-3 higher in the armory than theirs. The weapons you have are at least as important as your skills, at least with the current state of the game. Think about all the factors currently in play with medals, as Pirate says. Beating up dev bases, number of attacks, medal gate, etc. How is this even still a question?
