EPTOn May 12 2011 17:19 Kurai Sora wrote:
Ever played Halo on top lvl ? Or COD ?.
Ever played Halo on top lvl ? Or COD ?.
Oh god, please don't try to pretend any CoD game is a high level shooter.
CoD is so watered down its almost sickening
Highest skillcap - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
jeparie
United States65 Posts
Oh god, please don't try to pretend any CoD game is a high level shooter. CoD is so watered down its almost sickening | ||
|
StarMoon
Canada682 Posts
DotA has a decent bit of learning curve, but is not that mechanically difficult. It is not as difficult as say... SC2 even, or hell WC3 for that matter. However, as mentioned before, the deal with DotA is decision making. Now this doesn't sound like a big deal, but it IS. Decision/judgement is 80% of DotA, 15% is CS accuracy and landing skills (mechanics) and 5% is items. You could make an argument for like 70/20/10 but the concept stands. Why is this? Whether its early game, or endgame, every SECOND, every step your hero makes, or your opponent makes, or attack, or (good heavens) skill use changes the situation. Every second you must decide how to move, the distance and speed of your attack and how it will impact the creeps, if you can engage, if he can engage, how your allies will respond and where they are, and vice versa. Every, single, step of movement is important. Every attack, every piece of gold spent one way or another; and I mean sometimes its critically important in a close-skill matchup. Half of it is a mindgame, seeing how your opponent is reading the situation and reacting to that and responding to him. Do you take a risk and move 3 steps to the left to get a creep but opening yourself to harras? How is your life/regen or mana/regen compared to his? How much damage can you put out in the time it will take for him and his ally to react to your aggression? It is hard to list and describe the dozens of micro-decisions and calculations you make every second. Trust me, while sc2 may involve a lot more 'macro', it involves FAR less decisions. You make less decisions in pro sc2 in a 30 minute game then you make in a 15 minute DotA game IMO. It was almost impossible to play perfectly both mechanically (there was still a decent skillcap on mechanics) and strategically, the best you could do most of the time is make less mistakes and have your risks pay off more often then your opponents. Imagine if you had to micro... a blink stalker, for 60 minutes, and each and every attack you made, each time you were hit, had a direct and snowballing impact on the game for you. And a bunch of stuff was changing around you all the time. It really might be more comparable to chess honestly. Oh, and it was a 5v5 team game where each decision any teammate made (especially if close enough to impact you) could change your game. It doesn't compete with SSBM or blizzard RTSes, but its worth considering. Also I'll throw out there that LoL, while having some of its own charm and some more depth in some ways, is in general a far lower skillcap game then DotA. | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
| ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
On May 12 2011 17:25 jeparie wrote: Oh god, please don't try to pretend any CoD game is a high level shooter. CoD is so watered down its almost sickening How can a console FPS have a higher skillcap when you're limited by how fast you can spin around, and precision, also when theres less health management since you can regen shield and armor in those games. That guy says we're ignoring console games well how about ARCADE games. Beatmania 2dx or SF2, 3rd strike, AE, GGXX, etc... | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
On May 12 2011 17:31 neobowman wrote: Minesweeper Minesweeper is all about coinflip situations at expert  the skill cap's low as hell | ||
|
BouBou.865
Netherlands814 Posts
| ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
On May 12 2011 17:36 BouBou.865 wrote: I played Cod competitvely for 3 years, missed my first 21 shots on Quake. Just, hitting, people on Quake is effing impossible. And to think aim is probably the smallest aspect of quake, when theres stuff like positioning, strafe juumping and movement/keeping up momentum, predictions, and timing 5-7 timers in your head. | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On May 12 2011 07:42 mute20 wrote: Fighter : Marvel vs capcom 2 Shooter: Quake 1-3 Stratagy: chess/starcraft 1 Chess>SC1 big time.. | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
mechanics =/= strategic depth.. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
Strategy for me is purely about strategic depth without mechanics holding you back. I prefer TBS over RTS, for that matter. The fact that you are actually given the time to think ahead (sometimes up to 10 moves) gives it the edge. In RTS you can be strategically superior but still lose against a player who just knows how to click stuff faster. | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
On May 12 2011 14:21 T0fuuu wrote: Cs is a weird game to give a skillcap to because of how the game is designed. In between quake and sc2 tourney streams I watch CS and I am still convinced that most pro games are decided by 1 or 2 players carrying the team with godlike aim rather than by a teams superior economy management or "teamwork". Where the game really shines is in 1 vs x situations where you can see the thought that goes into a play or a victory but saving guns or a quick death is what normally happens and that's pretty boring. I think part of the reason why its difficult to give the game a really high skillcap compared to dueling and rts games is because MR15 format and the idea of timed rounds doesn't give the game the depth to be able to capitalise on the pace of the game or time the same way dm and rts games can. Forcing a team to eco doesnt feel as immediate and flowing as controlling pickups because games are limited to rounds. The game feels limited in how the game can be played and mostly dependant on execution. Kind of like clan arena but with bombs to force a round to end. Whereas when you look at Quake all the top aimers(killsen, strenx, spartie) have the ability to win tournaments but the more strategic and smart players are currently dominant (cooller rapha cypher). Plus they all have very different playstyles which makes for interesting games when the aimers and the thinkers collide. ie cooller vs strenx Team generally have someone that is not expected to live through the round and they have clean up. Which is why the game looks like there are MVPs in it. | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
On May 12 2011 17:50 maartendq wrote: Strategy for me is purely about strategic depth without mechanics holding you back. I prefer TBS over RTS, for that matter. The fact that you are actually given the time to think ahead (sometimes up to 10 moves) gives it the edge. In RTS you can be strategically superior but still lose against a player who just knows how to click stuff faster. "just knows how to click stuff faster" is a basic part of the game, sc2 or bw, no matter which of those games you came here for click stuff faster is condescending considering that with "clicking stuff faster" you can either macro properly or micro properly and you wouldnt be able to put multipronged attacks into action. Chess is ONLY strategy nothing else Starcraft is strategy AND mechanics, you cant compare the two. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
Probably Guilty Gear for fighters. LOL @ the guy trying to bring console FPS into this discussion... | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
On May 12 2011 17:36 BouBou.865 wrote: I played Cod competitvely for 3 years, missed my first 21 shots on Quake. Just, hitting, people on Quake is effing impossible. haha god and aim isn't even the beginning | ||
|
Ikkuhh
Netherlands9 Posts
| ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6163 Posts
| ||
|
valaki
Hungary2476 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On May 12 2011 08:18 Seide wrote: I think by skillcap most people really mean the skillcurve. How far ahead is someone who is in the top 1% vs top 10% vs someone who is average/pretty good. The problem with this "definition" of skillcap is that it's skewed toward games that have greater exposure, because a game with more players inevitably gets more "pros" and has its limits pushed. Games like Brood War, CS, and SSBM are sitting on 10+ years of competitive play history. Even if a game came out that was technically just as "hard" as any one of them, the difference between the top 1% and the top 10% in that game would inevitably be less than it is in those 3 games, due to the simple fact that there will have been less good players who played the game and less high-skill elements discovered. It's also worth noting that many defining high-skill features of all 3 games I mentioned were not explicit game features, but rather were discovered by players after their release. | ||
|
dunc
Netherlands1105 Posts
On May 12 2011 08:05 Seide wrote: few things about WoW: really low skill cap, unitll you get into the top .5-1% of raiding, then it is actually quite higher. Thought this skillcap is usually a skillcap on how good your teamwork and reaction skills are, not at how good you are at playing your specific character. I'm sorry but no, the only thing easier than arena in WoW is the PvE unless you're talking about vanilla. Judging from your post you were just a hardcore PvE player and you're trying to make it seem much harder than it actually is. Every single person in the world could clear tbc/wotlk/cata encounters, at least not every single person could get Gladiator(though I have no clue why). | ||
| ||
