But, why levels? Levels mean nothing. You can get to level 41 in a few rigged games, as shown on the forums.

Levels aren't a perfect indicator of anything, but what is? As imperfect as they are, I think levels do tell you at least roughly how familiar someone is with the game. Does level 60 mean you're better than a level 40? Not at all. But you've probably played more types of games on more maps with a wider variety of settings. Probably. Meanwhile a level 10 probably has a lot to learn, even if they have great natural talent. Of course this is all assuming the accounts aren't multis.

Those who rig games to get levels... well, I assume they're a minority, but at least they know enough to know how to rig the games. Congratulations on deflating an almost meaningless stat.

Edit: Case in point, I'm only level 55, so I didn't know that if you bold and italic something, you have to put the closing tags in the reverse order of the opening tags. ^_^;

Edited 10/10/2015 03:08:21

Eh, Majority of what I know in playing the game strategically evolved from player against other players, so to a certain degree level could be important (I doubt we will see a new player(level 1, not an alt) ever defeat a level 60 in a competitive game), but after a certain point, it just comes down to skill and experience, which levels should show, but as proven commonly don't(I think games played is a better indicator).