| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Alabasern
United States4005 Posts
There is no spray and pray and FPS's don't require a player to macro manage inactive or stationary items in the game experience. Brood War is lonely on the top... followed by Quake or similar FPS. Both require good game sense or scouting to maintain advantages. But In Brood War, players must subvert or overwhelm their opponents. It is a game of speed calculations more than a FPS's game of reflexes. | ||
|
fern
Netherlands1 Post
On May 20 2011 09:59 Wazakhaq wrote: First i would like to ask you when did i offend you or "your game". Second I play quake myself lol. Quake players are just biggest snobs around and are butthurt because everyone doesnt like their game  quakeworld player here, i'm butthurt right now cause you are talking about the popularity of this game in a skill cap thread, good start o_O most people abandon the game cause they don't wish to spend their time spawning a hundred times and getting 3 kills for months and beyond, that's pretty much what it boils down to. it's more than fair, it's your time, and you spend it how you see fit, but it doesn't make us snobs ;p | ||
|
Lumire
United States607 Posts
On May 20 2011 11:28 bEwArE wrote: In my opinion out of any game I've ever played it has to be Starcraft 2, I've only ever played CoD4 and a handful of other games competitively though. Chess I think has a very high skill cap, but having so long to make each move I think makes it alot easier. Don;t get me wrong though Chess is hard as hell to get good at, I just think there's so much open space for skill increase in SC2. Like you watch a replay and you can see straight away what you did wrong, where-as Chess you're not really thinking on your feet and making clutch decisions like in SC:2 and other RTS's. lol... even comparing the skill cap in sc2 to chess is just laughable... | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On May 20 2011 09:21 antelope591 wrote: Clearly u misread my post...I didn't say take a game I said take a round or have a bunch of kills which you agreed with. Obviously the pro would win but purely based on luck you can still take a round once in a while or get a kill once in a while. In BW there's no such thing as winning a game once in a while vs an S class player unless you're a pro yourself. This is what I mean by luck being a factor...of course it's not a big factor but even if its 1-5% that's greater than the luck involved in BW which is pretty much close to 0. And you clearly misread mine. Getting a kill in Quake or a round in CS is the equivalent to winning a single engagement in a SC game..... You would still be 0-1000 vs a top player. | ||
|
h3r1n6
Iceland2039 Posts
On May 20 2011 09:21 antelope591 wrote: Clearly u misread my post...I didn't say take a game I said take a round or have a bunch of kills which you agreed with. Obviously the pro would win but purely based on luck you can still take a round once in a while or get a kill once in a while. In BW there's no such thing as winning a game once in a while vs an S class player unless you're a pro yourself. This is what I mean by luck being a factor...of course it's not a big factor but even if its 1-5% that's greater than the luck involved in BW which is pretty much close to 0. Umm, getting a single frag in a game and ending it 1-20 is just like killing 2 mutas while dying to muta micro. Anyway, there was some talk about the actual definition of skill cap here, and I still think it's not really been made clear. I'll start at the beginning: Having a certain amount skill means, that you can beat an opponent with less skill. Skill is a combination of talent and training. A skill cap would be a maximum amount of skill a player can achieve in a game, which would mean perfect play. There is are problems with that definition, which I'll get to. In a game like Tic Tac Toe, there is an skill cap, and a very low one at that. You can only get so good (which will take you about 10 minutes of trying all the moves out), and the game will always end in a draw. For reference, take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game There are two main problems. First: In a game of imperfect information (starcraft/poker) there can't be a skill cap. If you don't know everything, you have to make the best out of the information you have, but can never be guaranteed to make the best decision. Second: The skill cap is just not possible to reach for a human. This is true for a complex turn based game like chess, but it is especially true for real time games. Just take a look at the micro videos here (and there have been similar ais for sc2): http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=107185 For example: By having a skill cap that is beyond human capabilities (which is true for most games), there is simply no way of comparing games to each other by that skill cap definition. What we can do is give an estimate, of how much at the top of human capabilities, other factors (mainly luck, partially balance) influence the outcome. Explaining. In an asymetrical game like Brood War, perfect balance is pretty much impossible. If one of the races would be stronger than the other, than the balance is tilted, and the equally skilled player playing the weaker race would win less. While there are some largely map dependent trends, they can be overcome by the better player (Katrina TvP being my favorite example, where Flash dominated while every other Terran lost). Imbalance is not that much of an issue though, because large balance flaws in asymetrical games in the end just lead to mirror matches, which can't be imbalanced. The other big factor in the outcome is luck. If a game is too dependant on luck, the players skill doesn't matter as much anymore, effectively making the outcome random. In poker you can get fucked over by luck, that's why skill really shows in the long run in poker. So in order to establish himself as the better player, someone would need more time. Games of imperfect information also always include a bit of luck. You can only try to anticipate your oponents moves, and so can he. While there is definately skill (and in certain games a lot of it) to playing mind games, in the end it is still a guess. An example of luck in Brood War are all-in builds, that rely on the opponent not scouting them or not reacting accordingly (a worse player will often favor cheese, because that gives him the highest chance of winning against the better player). Another rather ridiculous example is the former WCG map paranoid android. 1 o'clock spawn mines minerals about 15% (iirc) faster than 2. So the player on top had a rather large advantage. But since Brood War has a really high skill cap under the following definition, that disadvantage can be overcome. So let's try the following for a definition: A game having a high skill cap means, that the outcome of a competition at the top of human capabilities is decided as much as possible by the skill and daily form of the competitors. But still, even with this definition, for most games there can only be guesses about the skill cap, since most games never get players anywhere near the humanly possible skill. It is pretty safe to say that Brood War players get pretty close to that point, and that Brood War has a fairly high skill cap by that definition. Chess, by this definition, has the highest skill cap possible as far as luck goes, but suffers (even if only a bit) from imbalance by white having the advantage. This is of course overcome by switching, but still, in a Best of X series, one player will play white one more time than the other. And still there is no way to objectively compare Brood War and Chess in terms of skill requirement. And thinking of it, this thread is way more lighthearted and this post is pretty useless :D | ||
|
Zariel
Australia1285 Posts
| ||
|
Maynarde
Australia1286 Posts
On May 20 2011 15:49 Zariel wrote: Try playing Final Fantasy XI online. ... And then try XIV ... The beta for that was so confusing that I felt like I needed to take my brain out of my head and soak it in cold water for a few hours to douse the fire. | ||
|
bEwArE
United Kingdom121 Posts
On May 20 2011 14:10 One wrote: lol... even comparing the skill cap in sc2 to chess is just laughable... Sorry what? Are you saying Chess is easy? | ||
Shellshock
United States97276 Posts
I think he's saying sc2 is easy. | ||
|
maryelizbethwinstead
Mexico223 Posts
Just a thought: maybe since we are in a sc2 forum, with a bias for sc/bw, maybe we should consider other games outside of this? Remember what was said on the first page of this thread: skill cap and learning curve are different things. | ||
|
d.o.c
United States49 Posts
CS 1.6 BW SSBM I would say are the games that have had the skill boundaries PUSHED the hardest but I think pinning down what games have the highest skill caps. | ||
|
Essbee
Canada2371 Posts
. . . . 2. Quake 3. Fighting games 4. SC2 5. CS | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6163 Posts
On May 20 2011 03:53 Sm3agol wrote: Um. No. You obviously never played either Quake or CS competitively. Noone, not evne professionals touched Fatal1ty during his "dream run" back in the day, and I know I as a fairly solid Quaker, that I could never in my wildest dreams take a game off of the current beast, rapha. I think if I played a thousand games vs him(without improving, of course) at my level, I think I would probably have something like 50 KILLS total. And would be 0-1000. I would never come even close to taking a game off him. And as an even better CS player......it's almost worse. Sure, my team might take an occasional round(out of a bo15, like usual), but would never come even close to winning a game vs a top team. For an example of perspective, a round in CS or a kill in Quake would be roughly equivalent to an engagement in SC. A top level team could probably beat my team with nothing but grenades and desert eagles.....15-0. The difference is just as HUGE. You overestimate BW. I played an "average" top team in a CEVO tournament about 5 years ago...they beat us 15-1. They rushed us with smgs and shotguns every round. I almost quit right then and there. I agree with smeagol here, you won't be able to beat up any Quake Pro if you are just an average player. The map control they will have is insane and they will always know where you are and what you plan to do | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On May 26 2011 19:41 FaCE_1 wrote: I agree with smeagol here, you won't be able to beat up any Quake Pro if you are just an average player. The map control they will have is insane and they will always know where you are and what you plan to do Another Quake example since it's such an amazing game on every level, mental and mechanical. I played a duel vs walter, a fairly well-known "average" high level player who has insane movement and aiming skills, but has very sub-par decision making at times. He didn't even really time items, or play map control. He just rocket jumped around the map, forced spawns, and denied weapons all game. I got multiple MH and RAs, but never killed him. I lost the game something like -1 to 21. Probably the most frustrating game I've ever played in my life. I would be timing MH or RA perfectly, and would drop in and take it unopposed, just for him to come speeding around a corner(DM6 :-[ ), rocket me into the air, and lg me into oblivion. I've also played lesser known players with terrible movement and aim(below 20% acc, lol) but that had great map control and timing, and they would rock me just the same despite me dealing more damage to them than they to me. They just always had 150/200 vs my 100/50. Quake is such a ridiculous game with such a vast repertoire of almost cap-less skills to learn that you can dominate by just excelling at one to a ridiculous degree. I've seen players like walter win games just with great movement. They'll get a 1-2 frag lead, and just fly around the map for the last 3 minutes, uncatchable except by a chance rocket/rail, and they'll replenish that with a powerup pickup 2 seconds after anyways, so it wouldn't even matter. Strenx wins games vs pros sometimes just by having 45% lg accuracy. Obviously you won't win any big events being so one-dimensional, but it's just an example of how deep a game Quake is. Rapha dominates games with positioning. His aim is probably below average for a pro, his movement is fairly slow(but calculated), but he is never caught off guard, and he has such great dodging and positioning skills that he almost always seems to have the advantage in engagements. And he has won a ridiculous amount of LANs and tournaments. | ||
|
Aisbeforeb
United States1 Post
League of Legends is now the number one E-sport in the world, lots of BW pros have switched to SC2, Guild Wars 2 launched and its pvp scene is almost none existent, WoW's arena scene is still going, Counter-strike Go is now the new FPS on the block (call of duty will always be around), GunZ is about to be shut down, Tribes: Ascend was suppose to be the new 'Tribes' but fans don't like it, Dota 2 seems to pop up a lot, and of course SSF4 is constantly being played. It would be great if somebody actually came up with a mathematical equation to measure skill-cap. Maybe factor in all of the variables each game has and the player's ability to react to and control those variables. My apologies on necroing this thread but it was a pretty good read. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Rain
Wardi Open
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Rush
Kung Fu Cup
PiGosaur Monday
GSL Code S
Cure vs sOs
Reynor vs Solar
GSL Code S
Maru vs TriGGeR
Rogue vs NightMare
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
