I think my number one would have to be tennis. Especially in grand slams, you almost never see a higher ranked player in the top end lose to a lower ranked player, even if its like #2 vs #3, and semi finals usually consists of the top 4 seeds. And I've seen a Elo ranking of tennis players somewhere and it had the highest peaks I had ever seen(even higher than chess) which was over 2900 for Federer.
Id have to put chess in second. But I think it is reaching its limits nowadays a game between two grandmasters ends up in a draw more often than not, and if not that then its whoever had white side that wins.
And id put Starcraft in third. Both sc2 and bw but mainly broodwar because I think random factor in sc2 is higher but I'm confident blizzard will change that in future expansions though.
EDIT: OK people I realised what I had in mind is what is the game with lowest random factor. As "most skilled-based" is pretty damn nebulous and subjective and probly not a good way to phrase it
That game is so hard, there are too many mechanics and bugs and glitches; that game needs so many patches but they never seem to come. I rage so much when I play it, god... there are also a crap tonne of addicts of that game, more players than all Blizzard games combined. Very time consuming too, its hard to find time to do anything else but to play it.
That game is so hard, there are too many mechanics and bugs and glitches; that game needs so many patches but they never seem to come. I rage so much when I play it, god... there are also a crap tonne of addicts of that game, more players than all Blizzard games combined. Very time consuming too, its hard to find time to do anything else but to play it.
That and its not very balanced >.<. Whoever made this game better l2balance!
I don't think tennis is most skilled as style match up and the surface being played on plays a big factor and i've seen plenty of times where the better player skill wise has lost due to these factors. In my opinion some kind of athletics spot would be the most skilled.
I think the OP is going by highest probability of superior player winning, which I don't really agree with if you're talking about "most skillful." For highest probability of superior player winning, you just need a game with a pretty high sample size of sorts (the longer the match and the more key actions per unit time, the better), low randomness, and so on.
On November 28 2011 01:46 kafkaesque wrote: So this is not about the skill involved but about how measurable the skill is?
I think a game in which a player can win games on a clearly better player shows the game has an higher random factor
But how do you measure who the better player is? Consistency in winning? Im not arguing with you that say Federer was by far he best tennis player. But theres no "measurable" skill that you can use to define it. Some other guys serve harder, move faster etc..
If winning a lot is the only way you can define who the better player is, then of course a "better player" will win more often over a "lesser player" because thats how you defined he was better in the first place.
Tetris? Rng involved but I don't think there is so much you could lose because of it. Go? I prefer this to Chess when talking about skill. Even when I prefer chess itself to play and enjoy, but I don't think it's harder.
Or maybe a race where 2 persons solve sudoku problem and faster wins. It depends alot from which perspective you look 'most skill based game'. e; most ppl here are very biased.
mostly all sports with both technical and physical demands are virtually indistinguishable in terms of "skill required". the best players in all these sports are basically exceptionally talented people who have played said sport for the entirety of their lives. now, like myrmidon said, it kinda seems like you're asking for what has the highest probability of a superior player winning, and then honestly, you're probably looking for some endurance/speed based sport that only measures physical ability, as any sport involving a ball is always going to have an element of randomness.
Well I was a wc3 player for a long time and only played a handful of games in both BW and SC2 but I certainly pick Brood War as the videogame that requires most skill, although it is in big part because of the huge popularity in korea drew tons of money making people work harder, thus increasing the skill ceilling.
In sports this is a hard one, but having practiced soccer and swimming while kid and boxing and Jiu jitsu as an adult, I'll say that Boxing/MMA are a hardcore sports, maybe it takes a lot to be good in the NBA or NFL and that's fine, but in boxing/MMA you not only have to work incredibly hard but also you get punched, and once you get rocked really it's all survivor instinct and heart, you wouldn't understand if you haven't practiced. Fighters are by far the better atletles, period.
Well, I think this is the problem we cannot solve. It's simply because it not possible to measure the skill to the exact value. I mean a situation where there's a super-duper player playing against an average guy who is overall not that good, but prepared carefully to exploit all the weaknesess of the super-duper man. Average guy wins. Does it really mean that he is overall better than his opponent?
Good question, but I think every answer will be as true as false in some way
I don't really think you should compare a tennis match which consists of like 5 best of 5s to a single Starcraft match which is usually a single best of 3.
golf. so many factors. getting a ball in a tiny hole 5 football fields away with mother nature in your way, in 5 strokes(10 for me)
baseball (pitcher batter dual, not the fielders) pitcher has so many pitches. and the release looks all the same. except one takes 0.4 secondes to get to you and the other 1 secondes. crazzy
BW- to be good you have to be a super human. and you cant suffer from epilepsi
Also, every sport/competition/game requires multiple kinds of skill. You mentioned tennis in the OP, but how do you actually determine and quantify who has the most skill and who is the better player? Andre Agassi was widely regarded as one of the best returners ever, but his serve is not nearly as good as Pete Sampras serves were. Since there is no quantifying system, there is no measure of who the more skillful player is. The only true measure of success in a game is victory, which means that it is both impossible and pointless to try to determine the game that is the most "skill based".
On November 28 2011 01:46 kafkaesque wrote: So this is not about the skill involved but about how measurable the skill is?
I think a game in which a player can win games on a clearly better player shows the game has an higher random factor
But how do you measure who the better player is? Consistency in winning? Im not arguing with you that say Federer was by far he best tennis player. But theres no "measurable" skill that you can use to define it. Some other guys serve harder, move faster etc..
If winning a lot is the only way you can define who the better player is, then of course a "better player" will win more often over a "lesser player" because thats how you defined he was better in the first place.
Well I think in a game where the outcome is 100% determined by how good you are then you best player on the planet would win every single tournament and the second best would come second every time. I think the closest you get to that than the more "skilled-based" the game can be called. Maybe I should have used the term "lowest randomness involved" rather than "skilled based"
On November 28 2011 02:15 Fyrewolf wrote: Also, every sport/competition/game requires multiple kinds of skill. You mentioned tennis in the OP, but how do you actually determine and quantify who has the most skill and who is the better player? Andre Agassi was widely regarded as one of the best returners ever, but his serve is not nearly as good as Pete Sampras serves were. Since there is no quantifying system, there is no measure of who the more skillful player is. The only true measure of success in a game is victory, which means that it is both impossible and pointless to try to determine the game that is the most "skill based".
On November 28 2011 01:46 kafkaesque wrote: So this is not about the skill involved but about how measurable the skill is?
I think a game in which a player can win games on a clearly better player shows the game has an higher random factor
But how do you measure who the better player is? Consistency in winning? Im not arguing with you that say Federer was by far he best tennis player. But theres no "measurable" skill that you can use to define it. Some other guys serve harder, move faster etc..
If winning a lot is the only way you can define who the better player is, then of course a "better player" will win more often over a "lesser player" because thats how you defined he was better in the first place.
Well I think in a game where the outcome is 100% determined by how good you are then you best player on the planet would win every single tournament and the second best would come second every time. I think the closest you get to that than the more "skilled-based" the game can be called. Maybe I should have used the term "lowest randomness involved" rather than "skilled based"
I think the game you describe would probably be the most boring game in the world to watch. You would always know the outcome before the start. That's not even taking into account the fact that it's impossible to truly accurately gauge skill and thus impossible to have perfect rankings.
On November 28 2011 02:05 Stylus wrote: I don't really think you should compare a tennis match which consists of like 5 best of 5s to a single Starcraft match which is usually a single best of 3.
I dont see why not. I mean its almost impossible to tell which of them has the largest sample. If you use time then yes a slam is usually longer.
On November 28 2011 02:13 S.O.L.I.D. wrote: Chess boxing, no doubt about it. You need to be a damn good chess player and in great physical shape, it's insane.
1.) Counter Strike - The superior team almost always win. Very little luck involved 2.) BW - High enough skill ceiling that superior player usually win even if cheese is involved 3.) Quake 3/Live - Sort of luck based when it comes to spawns even if you can force them but you usually see the same player at the top
On November 28 2011 01:46 kafkaesque wrote: So this is not about the skill involved but about how measurable the skill is?
I think a game in which a player can win games on a clearly better player shows the game has an higher random factor
But how do you measure who the better player is? Consistency in winning? Im not arguing with you that say Federer was by far he best tennis player. But theres no "measurable" skill that you can use to define it. Some other guys serve harder, move faster etc..
If winning a lot is the only way you can define who the better player is, then of course a "better player" will win more often over a "lesser player" because thats how you defined he was better in the first place.
Well I think in a game where the outcome is 100% determined by how good you are then you best player on the planet would win every single tournament and the second best would come second every time. I think the closest you get to that than the more "skilled-based" the game can be called. Maybe I should have used the term "lowest randomness involved" rather than "skilled based"
But even in your example a person with higher "skill" can lose to someone that's just genetically superior. When i competed as a swimmer it was easy to see who had the inherent physique and technique (skill) to become great. Those who had just the strength/agility or the technique never made it. It wasn't so much about honing skills as being extremely well suited for the sport you practice.
I'm pretty sure it's like that for most physical sports.
On November 28 2011 02:07 XsebT wrote: There are so many difficult competitions... Though, this came to my mind for some reason... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBWwm2Wysb8
I've always been less impressed with team sports.
When it comes to (essentially) non-physical games, I'd have to say bw of course.
The problem with sports like this and other judged sports is that it clearly isn't the best who always wins. It's who ever the panel of judges "thinks" is best. It's not a competition of me vs you and the last man standing wins but rather a contest of who can convince the judges that their routine was harder or more skillful. Far too often the "wrong" athlete loses because one or more of the judges decided that they don't like your outfit, personality, music choice, body shape, coach, home country, skin color, or any other reason they can think of. There is no way to have a totally impartial judge and therefore no real way to know who is "better."
I'd have to put it at 1. Tennis: the best of the best at tennis never really lose to those not as good. The top .1% (ferrer, federrer, del potro, tsonga, nadal, murray) hardly ever lose to the top 1%. This is much different from other sports where collective bad days really matter, if your shot is on its because you spent days on end perfecting it. 2. starcraft / counter strike/ quake/ SSF4: its really hard to put one on top of the other since all are completely skill based games. Though their might be an upset unlike tennis where upsets RARELY occur, all are based on the amount practiced against great players and you can't really have a lucky day, just a day where you make great decisions and all your practice comes together. Watching the dreamhack i realized that all 4 of these games are pretty similar in this regard and that is why i put them together here. While some may say that SC is much more difficult a game, i would say that may be true, but the level of play that the top of each game shares is fairly similar in that they practice A LOT, an absolute crap ton. 3. Chess: its about the same as 2, but i put it on a slightly lower level just because of how slow the reaction time is, but nonetheless its pretty much like a 2.1 on my scale.
I would put MMA like some, but their is too much variation in style and such that i can't say if its all skill and not just a training win since the guys know so many forms of martial arts. I will say that Muay Thai fighting is close to 3rd on my list because its not about taking or dealing punishment, its about knowing what to do and when to do it flawlessly. I would put track and feild, but that is more about being kenyan than anything else
On November 28 2011 02:07 XsebT wrote: There are so many difficult competitions... Though, this came to my mind for some reason... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBWwm2Wysb8
I've always been less impressed with team sports.
When it comes to (essentially) non-physical games, I'd have to say bw of course.
The problem with sports like this and other judged sports is that it clearly isn't the best who always wins. It's who ever the panel of judges "thinks" is best. It's not a competition of me vs you and the last man standing wins but rather a contest of who can convince the judges that their routine was harder or more skillful. Far too often the "wrong" athlete loses because one or more of the judges decided that they don't like your outfit, personality, music choice, body shape, coach, home country, skin color, or any other reason they can think of. There is no way to have a totally impartial judge and therefore no real way to know who is "better."
Completely agree. I was simply saying that what they do is extremely impressive.
On November 28 2011 01:44 ShineOnYou wrote: game/sport/competition
I think my number one would have to be tennis. Especially in grand slams, you almost never see a higher ranked player in the top end lose to a lower ranked player, even if its like #2 vs #3, and semi finals usually consists of the top 4 seeds. And I've seen a Elo ranking of tennis players somewhere and it had the highest peaks I had ever seen(even higher than chess) which was over 2900 for Federer.
Id have to put chess in second. But I think it is reaching its limits nowadays a game between two grandmasters ends up in a draw more often than not, and if not that then its whoever had white side that wins.
And id put Starcraft in third. Both sc2 and bw but mainly broodwar because I think random factor in sc2 is higher but I'm confident blizzard will change that in future expansions though.
Yeah because there is no random factor in real sports... lol.
On November 28 2011 03:36 solidbebe wrote: Everyone is basically just listing the games they're a fan of/ have a background in.
Pretty much.
I disagree, people can only really state about what they know, if they didn't they would get called out. Plus has anyone named something that doesn't take skill here? i haven't see tiddly winks just yet . Still people will name what they have background in because they understand the sport.
That game is so hard, there are too many mechanics and bugs and glitches; that game needs so many patches but they never seem to come. I rage so much when I play it, god... there are also a crap tonne of addicts of that game, more players than all Blizzard games combined. Very time consuming too, its hard to find time to do anything else but to play it.
Really guys? Life? life is pretty effin balanced and easy. Isnt it for like, ages 7+? oh i guess its 9+. :D
Also as far as games that require the most skill... pac man
On November 28 2011 01:44 ShineOnYou wrote: game/sport/competition
I think my number one would have to be tennis. Especially in grand slams, you almost never see a higher ranked player in the top end lose to a lower ranked player.
I've played tennis and I agree its ridiculously demanding for many reasons.... but I'm not gonna touch on those. I think a large part of what explains the phenomenon you mention is the scoring system.
Every game you have to win by two points. Every set you have to win by two games. Every match you have to win by two sets.
This results in all games/sets/matches to be extended whenever the score is first, and over longer matches the better player is more and more likely to win. You could probably replicate this effect with almost any sport if you implement some kind of system where games are drawn out when things get close: 1. Longer rounds in boxing if there is no winner. Win by at least two rounds (probably not the best example I know). 2. Must win by at least 6 points (2 field goals or a touchdown) by regulation or the game is thrown into an overtime determined by same winning margin but the kicking team must have a chance to respond with their own drive. etc, etc.
The tennis thing is pretty much shit - just see how long Federer had not been winning before last weeks tournament or better yet, take a look at the nr 1 woman in the world, miss Sunshine AKA Caroline Wozniacky and how many majors she has won and who beats her...
Sports are obviously hugely skillbased, but to say that one is more so than another just showcases how you define skillbased activity. Personally I would for example argue that badminton is way more skillbased than tennis seeing how the physical, tactical and technical demands are all higher...
1. MMA 2. BW 3. I dunno... OP's argument for Tennis was pretty good
In any 'game' there is always an aspect of randomness for sure. Like if you try to recall into Terran's base and nothing happens (sorry Jaehoon) or you get hit just right and are KO'ed. I chose MMA over BW because in MMA you can just avoid randomness by being better. Like Anderson Silva, Frankie Edgar and Lyoto Machida are 3 fighters that are fast and just avoid being hit. The fact that their skill to dodge is so good reduces the effect randomness has on their fights, whereas in BW no player can avoid ridiculous things happening sometimes.
Marathon. F1 driving (yes, this shit is freakin' hard to do, just search driving F1 on youtube and you'll probably find a documentary) BW. MMA.(not the player)
The most skill based where you can be sure that nothing else but the player and only the player had influence on the outcome would be GO or chess ( both based on how well you can think in a limited amount of time while both of you know exactly what the other does ) GO is harder to master then chess as far as i hear but considering that there was no "absolute" chess champion that won 100% EVER its kinda oky to say that both have a higher skill cap that any human could reach, there is the "imbalance" of white vs black but that is like 55%/45% statistically in chess ( would imagine a lil lower in GO ) so i still think is kinda more skill based then other sports. Arguably Tenis and fighting ( MMA/boxing/w.e) could be quite skill based as well but there is a certain amount of luck involved in them so i still think GO and chess place higher. As far as computer games go i think the most skill based are dota games (maybe) since the amount of luck involved seems pretty small compared to other games. Also there is running/swimming that is pure skill but that is hardly a sport and more of a measurement of "how fast can you x". Edit: Read thread, half the ppl confuse skill based to talent based/hard -_-
Although its just a browser game, only few people were able to run 100m =) Hardest game ive ever played. NinjaGaiden ez, Broodwar EZ. THats the real deal Cant pass 50m. you should try =)
For sports its really hard to say but probably chess. but golf seems to be hard too. ofc hockey / football / tenis or any martial art looks hard too. 1. BW 2. Quake 3. CS1.6 (I saw some episodes of Fnatic Carns life and u can see how important the team work is) 4. SC2
As far as computer games go i think the most skill based are dota games (maybe) since the amount of luck involved seems pretty small compared to other games.
I think fps/rts have much higher skill cap. In moba you have very few thing to keep track of, actions are pretty esay to do (not like micro 3drops while macro in starcraft) and i found that most of what is hide is esay to see comming (was near top on LoL and pretty decent but so far from top players on dota).
1) MMA 2) FPS (choose the most balance one(s) cs/quake i guess) 3) RTS (probably sw:bw)
I think FPS are the most demanding because you can always aim better (though aiming is maybe not that much a skill in itself and more reflexe/habits than anything else).
The most skill-based games are the ones I like/play. There's no way to objectively assemble such a list because there's no way to actually measure "skillfullness."
On November 28 2011 05:01 matiK23 wrote: Then why do people say BW is a more complex version of chess?
it's not. it's really. really. not.
it takes a lot of technical skill, and has a shitload of strategy as well, but chess is much much deeper. i guess people are entitled to their opinion, but i personally believe that go and chess completely outclass all other games in terms of strategy (but not technical skill )
On November 28 2011 04:42 Ghostcom wrote: The tennis thing is pretty much shit - just see how long Federer had not been winning before last weeks tournament or better yet, take a look at the nr 1 woman in the world, miss Sunshine AKA Caroline Wozniacky and how many majors she has won and who beats her...
Sports are obviously hugely skillbased, but to say that one is more so than another just showcases how you define skillbased activity. Personally I would for example argue that badminton is way more skillbased than tennis seeing how the physical, tactical and technical demands are all higher...
Women tennis ranking system is shit though and theres no 5 setter in the whole circuit
For sports, I would say probably american football or basketball. The reason why tennis has so many consistent winners is because matches take forever, so you are removing a lot of the variance in the game by making the players fight it out for 3+ hours. Basketball does this too, to an extent, since there are so many plays within a game. Football, however, has so much variance since games are relatively short in terms of # of plays and reward for scoring/turnovers is very high, yet the better team almost always wins.
For video games, it's definitely the fighting game genre. I played competitive FPS and reasonably high-level Tekken/Soul Calibur/MvC2, and without a doubt fighters are the most demanding of any game. As long as it's a lowvar game like SSF4 or BlazBlue, the person who plays better will win basically 100% of the time, while in FPS it is possible to get some lucky frags or lucky spawns, and in SC2 there are plenty of build order advantages. Fighters are very forgiving to small mistakes; you can make 10 small mistakes over the course of a match, but if your opponent makes 11, you will beat them. In other games, if you make one small mistake at the wrong time, you often can't recover.
Broodwar EZ. I played a lot of quake/cpm/warsow too but after some time the differences are in the detail. Someone might have higher accuracy, slightly better timing or get around quicker with better movement but generally the play looks roughly the same. In broodwar I might have 220 APM but still feel like I am competing in the paralympics compared to someone like flash and I limp behind on actions I should do because my hands are just not quick enough. Even after years of playing the best of the foreigners games still looked unpolished compared to the best koreans.
As far as computer games go i think the most skill based are dota games (maybe) since the amount of luck involved seems pretty small compared to other games.
I think fps/rts have much higher skill cap. In moba you have very few thing to keep track of, actions are pretty esay to do (not like micro 3drops while macro in starcraft) and i found that most of what is hide is esay to see comming (was near top on LoL and pretty decent but so far from top players on dota).
1) MMA 2) FPS (choose the most balance one(s) cs/quake i guess) 3) RTS (probably sw:bw)
I think FPS are the most demanding because you can always aim better (though aiming is maybe not that much a skill in itself and more reflexe/habits than anything else).
FPS requires reflexes and good habits and aim. BW required multitasking, reflexes and habits. Not to say FPS doesn't require skill, but the amount of skill required for RTS is ridiculously high. MOBAs are, very random and reflex heavy. There's no real way of determining where an opponent will go, so there is guess work.
On November 28 2011 04:51 Aterons_toss wrote: As far as computer games go i think the most skill based are dota games (maybe) since the amount of luck involved seems pretty small compared to other games.
I would disagree with that. Not a big player of dota but from what I know games are pretty volatile and best players only have like 55% win rate or something? I remember checking the ranking and best player on ladder had like 1900 Elo :/
On November 28 2011 05:01 matiK23 wrote: Then why do people say BW is a more complex version of chess?
it's not. it's really. really. not.
it takes a lot of technical skill, and has a shitload of strategy as well, but chess is much much deeper. i guess people are entitled to their opinion, but i personally believe that go and chess completely outclass all other games in terms of strategy (but not technical skill )
^2000 uscf player speaking
I think chess is more about "who computes best and fastest every possible move" than "strategies"
FPS requires reflexes and good habits and aim. BW required multitasking, reflexes and habits. Not to say FPS doesn't require skill, but the amount of skill required for RTS is ridiculously high
Well yeah, mostly depend on how you define skill.
I guess if multi-tasking (and/or high apm) : 1) sc:bw 2) sc:bw also
If reading opponent well 1) poker (over many many games to get rid of varience) 2) chess 3) MMA
Having a very solid technique (not sure how to say it) 1) Tenis 2) MMA 3) F1
Thinking really fast with a lots of thing at once 1) chess
ps: you can change everything by a similare game depending on balance or other thing, though you need a lot of people playing/traning it to have people very skilled at it.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XAvnY.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/diewk.jpg)
)
