It seems as though we are trying to define relevance, but are getting caught-up in context.
Since we are posting on TI, there are inherently two distinct places from which we are attempting to extrapolate a given player's relevance: On the battlefield, and on the forums.
On the forums, the definition of relevance is so convoluted (most threads/guides/posts, longest time as member, most liked/hated, etc) that it is a waste of time to discuss imo.
However, in Battlegrounds, relevancy can be both game-to-game and situational: game-to-game being overall play during the BG's duration, situational being any moment in time.
While I agree that skills do not make a player relevant, they do help.
If we define relevance as the degree to which one's gameplay affects the outcome of the BG (win or lose), who is relevant?
The FC? FC support? The players controlling mid? The offensive flag-return squad? Base defense? The player who surveys the field and chooses the point of greatest impact?
It is difficult to say, since it all depends on where a player is on the field, what that player is doing, and what else is going on at the same time.
Having skills, one may win a 2v1 skirmish midfield...but if both teams have the opposing flags within their respective bases, and are awaiting offense to get a return, one's current actions are irrelevant.
On the flipside, if one has no skills, but is peeling the EFC's only healer long enough that rest of the offense can get a return, one's actions are extremely relevant.
Also, gear plays a role...one cannot be relevant if the whole game is spent looking at a rez timer because the toon has 2k hp.
My answer?!
I believe one should [be geared and ] use a mixed bag of tricks by employing both skill and relevance, multitasking to produce several results (ie-hunter freezing trap on healer, then waiting a few seconds for cc to break before sending a snaring pet to tie them up even longer...all while maintaining pursuit on EFC to help the others on O).
