|
On May 13 2011 02:17 kainzero wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 01:41 Marimokkori wrote:
Actually, it's not possible that the random will kill you.
Pieces are given in bags of 7, containing each unique piece in a random order. It isn't possible to get the same piece more than twice in a row (unless you count your "Hold" piece, making it 3).
Tetris skill comes from speed + planning. It being a relatively simple game, and incredibly easy to learn, I wouldn't put the skill ceiling for it that high compared to other games with more depth such as sc:bw. It depends on the version of Tetris. Gameboy/NES/Tengen Tetris did not have the bag system. Tetris has evolved so much since its original form and there are so many terms for all the different mechanics, but the general public can't really tell the difference.
Tetris absolutely has a skill ceiling as high as starcraft. The newer tetris games have some very strange mechanics that have to deal with wall kicks ect. The most difficult ones require a deep knowledge of the order that kicks occur such as Mihara's Conspiracy.
http://harddrop.com/wiki/TGM_Rotation#Mihara.27s_conspiracy
Tetris games are also affected by the RNG some games use 7 bag, some use pure random while other use more obscure systems. Cultris for example intentionally generates droughts.
In addition to the RNG used players also have to take into account the ARE (entry delay), IRT (initial rotation system), combo system, and lines sent per block. In addition to the RNG these factors act similar to the map system of starcraft.
There are actually certain styles to play tetris. For example cultris 2 has been trying to move towards a 2 wide combo system which encourages offensive play and discourages downstacking (defensive play). There are examples of other strategies such as a 4 space strategy:
http://harddrop.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2163
Triple Double and Fiddlesworth attacks are used for efficiency (more garbage sent with fewer line clears):
http://harddrop.com/wiki/Triple_Double_Attack_Setups
http://harddrop.com/wiki/Fiddlesworth
In addition strategies are still being developed. The special triple triple is an example of this. Also one of the most advanced and difficult tactics to pull off:
http://harddrop.com/wiki/Special_Triple_Triple_(TT1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8ZTeP.png)
There are even major variants of tetris (one of the most successful ones being cascade mode):
http://harddrop.com/wiki/S_and_Z_cascade
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ksSPL.png)
Even singleplayer has well developed strategies such as playing forever:
http://harddrop.com/wiki/Playing_forever
![[image loading]](http://harddrop.com/w/images/a/af/Polyomino.net_Playing_forever.png)
But the general conclusion I want to make is for any game which requires "sufficient skill" being extremely good at it is equally impressive. For example which is more impressive? Being the fastest runner on earth or being the fastest swimmer?
Also rotation system affects all of the above because I forgot about that.
|
Go.
Also, the Turbo Tunnel with 2 Players.
|
Trancey = Trance the priest from Emi?
|
Lol at WoW being involved with the word 'skill ceiling'. I certainly hope that isn't a troll.
Jokes aside, the hardest games are by far are:
FPS: CS 1.6 (Q3 a close second imho)
RTS: SC:BW
|
Chess and Go have really high skill ceilings. In video games, I'd say almost all the players at the very top probably only have small differences, but those small differences are pretty important. ie flash vs fantasy or somthing. Flash is a clearly superior player, but still, their differences in play are rather small. Just my opinion.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 13 2011 04:41 Skwid1g wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 12:44 Jibba wrote:
I played CS in CAL-i, and imo it's definitely behind Q3 for skill. I'd like a steamID because I honestly don't believe this in the slightest. With that being said, being CAL-i is like being a master league player in sc2 or a semi-pro foreigner in BW. You would still be getting stomped 16-0 by any halfway decent team. I've played Q3 for quite a while and most of the thinking is very, very simple, which isn't the case for CS. The aiming portion is quite true though, although recoil control becomes a factor.
There's more volatility to playing CS than you think, usually depending on ping and confidence levels. Some teams could regularly smash us in scrims like Rival because they were on a different level of aim and reaction times and they knew it, but when we played well we could still keep it close and occasionally beat 3D/u5/etc. Not at their best, though. The GM/Masters comparison is probably true though, if you dropped the size of GM to 5-10~ teams for NA. At their best those were the only ones who could compete abroad, but at their average the distance wasn't always that large.
The thinking in Q3 is different, but I don't know that being simple makes it easy. You have a constant clock of every item and you're predicting where your opponent can be based on those, past sighting and the amount of time passed. CS has a similar situation but it's only for one person at the beginning of a round. Money management is easy and for most people in round changes are happening by sense rather than conscious thought. The same goes for things like how to approach and angle yourself at a corner. Strats and setups are of course somethings that don't exist the same way in Q3, but I find myself commending Quake players' presence of mind more than I do CS players'.
And real recoil control was replaced by random bullet placement. The average skill level for aim is definitely higher now than when I played, though.
On May 13 2011 10:35 cLutZ wrote:
The actual skill involved in WoW progression is obviously evident in the fact that Guilds like SK, Nihilum, etc were able to stay at the top so long.
Obviously the ability to dedicate hours figuring out encounters also is a factor, but if you put everyone on a clock, those guilds still come out ahead. This might draw some flack, but I think it's also contingent on having a government to support you playing full time. Those groups have a lot of teamwork and experience together and a bunch of regulars who can field almost any composition they need at any given time but again, the actual execution in WoW is fairly simple for PvE. You just need 10/25 people chain performing their simple task to make it work. It can be hard to practice for, because each mistake makes it subsequently harder for the next person performing their task but when you isolate each part it's very easy. And if you're not worrying about paying rent or wearing yourself out in the day time, it's also much easier to put in heavy raid hours.
|
On May 13 2011 13:44 cozzE wrote:
Lol at WoW being involved with the word 'skill ceiling'. I certainly hope that isn't a troll.
Jokes aside, the hardest games are by far are:
FPS: CS 1.6 (Q3 a close second imho)
RTS: SC:BW
In terms of skill cap though I wouldn't say CS is ahead of Quake. CS is hard but the skill ceiling isn't as high as other games, Quake takes much more multitask and depth.
|
On May 13 2011 13:37 iinsom wrote:
Trancey = Trance the priest from Emi?
yes
|
On May 13 2011 05:11 trancey wrote:
It's also a known fact among hardcore old schoolers that top arena players make great raiders if they want to put the time into it. Mostly because it takes a ton of time to become a great arena player and master the fundamentals, if you transition those skills that make you a good player into a raider -- it just comes down to learning the script of the encounter.
Actually, I've seen very little correlation over the years. I think the set of skills you need to be good at pvp and pve are almost entirely exclusive to each other. More specifically, PvE is like solving a puzzle whereas PvP is about adaptation. Even if they required the same mechanic/mental skills, which they really don't, most PvPers aren't interested enough for the long haul of PvE and vice versa.
More on topic, I think WoW has a much higher difficulty at the top than a lot of people give it credit for. It requires a large time investment, yes. But do you know how many people play 6 hours a day and are terrible? A lot more than play 6 hours a day and are any good, I'll tell you that much. Once you get into the top few spots, simply getting into a guild is very competitive. You have to have top 100~ experience AT LEAST, and most guilds have rigorous trials that weed out half of the recruits that are already cream of the crop(half could be on the low side as well). If you want to look at "layers", WoW PvE probably has as many as any other game out there. I don't think the "layers" model actually works very well, but I don't want to ramble too much.
To be clear, WoW probably doesn't have the highest skillcap, but if you think you can reach the top just by throwing time at it, you're dead wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.
You could ask the same thing for real sports. Which has a higher skill cap, hockey or baseball? What side you take probably correlates to which sport you like.
|
United States22883 Posts
I've seen a lot of correlation from PvP->PvE, but I don't know if it's causation. Obviously it's not the other way around though. Guilds like DnT couldn't PvP worth a shit, but they consistently pulled US firsts, despite carrying known idiots. Most of the stuff you're talking about happens outside of the game. Getting into a top guild and raiding at that level can be difficult because there's so much competition and networking, but picking up a character and playing it to its absolute potential in PvE is quite easy. I don't know why so many people invest so many hours and are still terrible at the game. It's kind of mindblowing.
|
the brood war skillcap is basically infinity because 12 years in people with better mechanics and better strategies are still appearing... no other game can say that, especially since the commitment of time and energy from brood war pros is matched by few if any.
|
I've played Quake (qw and 3/QL) and CS for a long long time and people who think that CS takes more skill than quake obviously have not played the games much at all.
|
On May 13 2011 14:42 Jibba wrote:
I've seen a lot of correlation from PvP->PvE, but I don't know if it's causation. Obviously it's not the other way around though. Guilds like DnT couldn't PvP worth a shit, but they consistently pulled US firsts, despite carrying known idiots. Most of the stuff you're talking about happens outside of the game. Getting into a top guild and raiding at that level can be difficult because there's so much competition and networking, but picking up a character and playing it to its absolute potential in PvE is quite easy. I don't know why so many people invest so many hours and are still terrible at the game. It's kind of mindblowing.
I have noticed that as well,for some reason. hardcore PVEers generally suck at arena, while the good PVPers somehow holds their own in a PVE setting (I'm mainly a PVPer)
|
|
|
You should try QWOP, then. Crazy stuff right there.
|
On May 13 2011 15:51 eviltomahawk wrote:You should try QWOP, then. Crazy stuff right there.
I have beaten qwop, that game is like tick-tac-toe compared to spongebob boat o cross
|
On May 13 2011 14:42 Jibba wrote:
I've seen a lot of correlation from PvP->PvE, but I don't know if it's causation. Obviously it's not the other way around though. Guilds like DnT couldn't PvP worth a shit, but they consistently pulled US firsts, despite carrying known idiots. Most of the stuff you're talking about happens outside of the game. Getting into a top guild and raiding at that level can be difficult because there's so much competition and networking, but picking up a character and playing it to its absolute potential in PvE is quite easy. I don't know why so many people invest so many hours and are still terrible at the game. It's kind of mindblowing.
I really can't agree on the playing to absolute potential part. For starters, just try defining what the absolute potential in PvE is.... or for any meaningful competitive game for that matter. It's pretty easy to see that it's unreachable. Would it be not getting hit in street fighter, or performing techs in SSBM that people assumed could only be done in an emulator with frame by frame input? You could go on to say every worthwhile competitive game has no skill cap and that debating which game has the highest is pointless.
Not trying to nitpick that phrase, it's just "impossible to master" applies to WoW as well. If I take absolute potential to mean, for instance, the top 10-20 guilds performance... I still disagree! The heart of the game at the top is that you don't know what the bosses do when you first fight them, or if you do have some idea what they do, you don't know what strategy to use to beat it. This is what separates the top 10-20 or so from the rest. Everyone below that, has a template to use or fall back on if they get stuck.
When you start the raid for the night, every attempt counts. If you mess up 1 or 2 times in a night, that's 1-2 wipes because of you. Now multiply that by everyone else in the raid. Every mistake you make adds up incredibly quickly. This is a race, after all. You LOSE if you mess up too many times and the other guild kills it first. That's really just the progression though, and doesn't even look at the weight of officer decisions on class comps/ strategies. One bad call can easily waste ten of hours of time that other guilds can get ahead of you.
After progression, then you're worried about parses. Who can kill the boss the fastest/ can I get a record on x boss for my class? Then you can apply the nature of speed runs, which also take huge amounts of skill.
I hope I can get my point across without too much rambling, I just feel like the amount of skill in WoW at the top has suffered the same hearsay flogging Windows Vista does . It also aches me that a lot of players really into fighters don't respect SSBM as an equally deep game simply because it's mechanics are slightly different. That's a different post though.
|
As someone who has played WoW from a couple months after release and till now I can say that it doesn't take much skill.
I'm not saying its an easy ass game that anyone can excel in... but its close. PVP (arena) comes down to team composition. PVP (rated BGs) are a bit more balanced but not by much.
The hardest part about a hardcore raiding guild (this was what I did mostly) is getting 25 people that aren't retarded to show up 3-5 times a week consistently. Raiding isn't hard, its a "don't stand in shit, dps when you need to and hold off when appropriate" deal. There is very little where you need to think on your feet and adapt, generally if you can follow a plan you can do it. It literally comes down to having to do a 25m raid where 10 people are talented and 15 are just there to ride coattails until they can get their loot.
I can't tell you how long I raided where we had to wipe to a boss over and over until some moron learned that standing in/not moving out of something would wipe the entire raid.
People are what makes WoW raids difficult not the content.
|
On May 12 2011 22:43 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think to define skillcap you basically gotta do something like
"how many layers of dominance are there?"
like for example bw. prior to the release of sc2, I was very good at bw. yet there were hundreds of koreans who could beat me 10-0. (dominating me) I'm not sure you had any players that could beat me 10-0 that would be beaten 10-0 by anyone else, but I think flash or jd mightve made it fairly close. so you can probably argue that I had two layers of dominance over me, at the very least one and a half layer.
below me however, there were a lot more layers. I could beat someone 10-0, he could beat someone 10-0, that one could beat someone 10-0, that one could beat someone 10-0, that one could beat someone 10-0.. and now we're at something like D+ iccup. there are at least 5-6 more layers before you get to "has played a grand total of 50 sc games in his life". WoW doesn't come close here - there aren't 12+ giant steps of skill to overcome separating the best players and a newbie.
but some shooters like quake do come close. I was pretty good at quakeworld back in like 97 or whatever. but there you also had like, multiple layers of dominance. I can buy that a game like ssmb is also really high up - the one time I tried to play it I was wayyy out of my element, and street fighter is also pretty high. I can't see any game where there are as many layers of complete dominance as in bw though.
Although an interesting way to put it, it is still a very flawed way of looking at a games 'skillcap'. The reason why a game like wow you would not win 10-0 in a row, is because of the 'huge' luckfactor in the game (For the sake of this post lets just assume we are talking about some sort of mirror matchup where all other things are the same.) If they removed the luck in wow, then a person who was slightly better, would be able to win close to 10-0 of the time, as he would be able to remove all the straight up unlucky\lucky losses and the better player would come out ahead a lot more of the time. So removing the luck mechanics in wow would increase the layers of dominance. That being said, removing the 'luck factor' in wow, would not at increase the "skill cap". if anything it would make the game a lot 'easier' because one of the 'hard' things in wow is being able to handle the unpredictability that comes from sometimes being crit\sometimes missing etc.
The layers of dominance comes down to how much luck there is in a game to be honest. There is a lot of luck even in a game like BW, when you get into positions where you 'randomly' counter his build because you thought he might be going what he was going, whereas other times you might have been wrong and ended up being countered yourself. Also stuff like 'randomly' scouting a dropship or a proxy or something. Obviously the better you are, the better you are at starsensing out these things, and also the better you are at still winning even when you get 'unlucky'. But there is still a big luck factor in games like BW.
Ignoring the fact that nobody plays at the top of their game all the time, there will be games with absolutely no random factor, where there will be A lot more levels of "dominance" than sc:bw, as a person who is 1% better than you would dominate you (assuming you both played as well as you could) if no luck was involved. As I mentioned before, Poker is a game where there is basically no dominance, The best player in the world can often have a pretty large losing streak against a pretty bad player, yet there is still a tremendous amount of 'skill' in poker and it does not have a 'low skillcap'. And also as mentioned before, the theoretic levels of dominance is also directly related to the amount of people playing and competing in a game, not just the game itself.
|
WHAT?! I beat the first level after like 10 tries and thought it was done. Then I realized there were levels. TT
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
