copperr"The best of the best players" are not playing pub games to get good winrate they are playing pubs simply to have fun or take as many fights as they can to improve at the game even when they are playing like this they can get a decent winrate. The players who are trying to win will very easily get above 70+ winrate for example check the solo leaderboard. These players are not even playing for winrate they are playing for the number of wins. If winrate actually ment anything then all these players will have 90+ winrate and the only games they would lose will be to RNG like getting put into a game with against another good player.
It is also a battle royale game mode it is supposed to be a hard game to win. Which is why it is so popular to play and watch.
If you sort that site by "solo" and "win %", you'll find that win percentages are down to about 70% within the first 10 players, and about 50 within the first 100 and that's disregarding the relatively low number of games played for a lot of players. The season 5 win percentages follow a similar pattern if you cut people below 60 games played (which, based on info I can find about average match lengths for fortnite, should equate to about 20 hours of game time over the past week, which I'm using as an arbitrary baseline for a *moderately* dedicated player). If you sort by total wins you get an even clearer picture, where the most experienced players are generally sitting close to a 55% winrate, skewing below.
The big takeaway here is that the number of players that achieve a win rate greater than 50% is infinitesimally small, considering the size of the Fortnite install base, claiming that players trying to win will "very easily get above 70+ winrate" is simply ignorant. This also speaks to the impact of player skill on the outcome of the game. I couldn't really drill down into that too far without data on in-game deaths, but I'd be willing to say that Fortnite is closer to Yahtzee than it is to chess when it comes to skill indexing.
Additionally, the inherent streamability of battle royale games isn't due to the challenge, it's because there's an inherent narrative structure and tension in "land, grab gear, try to be the last person to die" and the pacing works out in such a way that good streamers have time and freedom to interact with their stream. Not to mention that the time from losing one game to starting another is pretty low, which is beneficial for audience engagement. The big leap is from streaming one player's POV to casting competitive games, which misses a lot of that built-in structure. Not to mention that, as I stated in an earlier post, the type of play that players should
be engaging in if they want to actually win the money that epic is putting up is INCREDIBLY boring to watch.