EPTIs it really true that CS GO is mostly talent?
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Shinokuki
United States859 Posts
| ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
Source: I am GE, until I was GE I had to play with randoms for the most part. And I am still pretty bad compared to my times in 1.6 / other players when it comes to nades etc. I got into GE almost purely through my aim which you can learn and train for sure. I would admit that I got some sort of talent/skill that transferred over from 1.6 but once again, that only made me start above the average, I still had to learn the game, movement, spraypatterns etc. | ||
|
JWD[9]
364 Posts
Over the years I picked up some techniques, where to aim while walking was one of the things that improved my play tenfold. I have a friend that likes CS:GO, but loses interrest fast, since he gets banned rather quickly. He is an X-men and you won't find his score on the website I posted, because it is around 90ms, which is something olympian athletes don't reach nor need, but going up against him on a pistol map makes me stop play CS:GO, there is no point. It is like diving against someone who can breath underwater. I can reach 200ms reaction time on my best day. I could totally imagine that there is a barrier you won't cross on the highest level of play, maybe there is some meditation, focus technique that can shorten your reaction time, maybe that is wishful thinking. I agree with the koreans. Then again, there is more than one area to be great at as waffelz hinted at, perfect grenades, takes practice and creativity. Being a good team mate, map knowledge, listening to footsteps, staying calm under pressure (tournemant scenario). Since it isn't a 1v1 game, there is room, even at the top for people that aren't freaks of nature. I think this is even reflected in most tournemant stats, if you look at the kill death distribution for both teams, even in pro teams one person often outclasses their teammates. Edit: Oh, GE is reachable with enough dedication. Special talent does play a role if you want to be the best there ever was, which is logically and makes what i posted redundant, sorry xD | ||
Epoxide
Magic Woods9326 Posts
| ||
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
So I'd say this is actually the complete opposite. While talent will give that extra bit that makes you go higher faster, CS:GO is a game that can really be grinded to improve and where hard works can truly pay off with a little bit of planning and thinking. | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On June 18 2017 18:39 JWD[9] wrote: https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime Over the years I picked up some techniques, where to aim while walking was one of the things that improved my play tenfold. I have a friend that likes CS:GO, but loses interrest fast, since he gets banned rather quickly. He is an X-men and you won't find his score on the website I posted, because it is around 90ms, which is something olympian athletes don't reach nor need, but going up against him on a pistol map makes me stop play CS:GO, there is no point. It is like diving against someone who can breath underwater. I can reach 200ms reaction time on my best day. I could totally imagine that there is a barrier you won't cross on the highest level of play, maybe there is some meditation, focus technique that can shorten your reaction time, maybe that is wishful thinking. I agree with the koreans. Then again, there is more than one area to be great at as waffelz hinted at, perfect grenades, takes practice and creativity. Being a good team mate, map knowledge, listening to footsteps, staying calm under pressure (tournemant scenario). Since it isn't a 1v1 game, there is room, even at the top for people that aren't freaks of nature. I think this is even reflected in most tournemant stats, if you look at the kill death distribution for both teams, even in pro teams one person often outclasses their teammates. Edit: Oh, GE is reachable with enough dedication. Special talent does play a role if you want to be the best there ever was, which is logically and makes what i posted redundant, sorry xD Holy fuck, I am getting 147-153ms on average if I’m warmed up, pumped and only accidently get into 100ms territory. Controlled 90ms sounds fucking scary. But your post still is valuable to this thread because it is a good example. Let’s look at the rare case of a guy with such insane reflexes, how does it actually benefit him? With reflexes alone he can react faster to what he sees, so the most obvious thing is he can hold angles more effectively. This doesn’t do anything though if he doesn’t know where to place his crosshair, if the crosshair placement is off and he misses the head and furthermore fails the spray he most likely dies anyways while only have traded equally (which is not ideal but acceptable as T, and bad as CT). Crosshair placement is one of the skills you have to learn, just like controlling your spray when not wielding a 1 Tap – Dirt nap weapon. Let’s assume he doesn’t hold a corner, but spots someone outside of his crosshair, if he lacks the required hand eye coordination, he still can’t get the kill. Another skill that you need to learn. Not to mention that sick reflexes alone got hard countered by flash/smokes/ nades that force him out of position, rushing close positions, ADAD prefire peaking or simply not going to that bombsite. So having such low reaction time will give him great advantages for sure, but it doesn’t do much on its own. Can it be enough for GE? Not alone, but with such a gift and the required spray control and coordination propably, but that can be said for less inhumane reaction times as well. As I said, I myself got into GE just by pure fragging power and besides calls and some strategy I where a horrible teammate because I could only do a very limited set of support nades on 3 maps. As others hinted, there are so much more qualities, especially team related ones. Nades are extremely important as a team skill, calling out properly, covering each other, rotating and all of those are learned. Also crosshair placement alone probably carries you into badge territory and spray control will do till LEM, even if it is just above average. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7104 Posts
| ||
|
paxconsciente
Belgium91 Posts
no, what it requires is good team play and coordination to get really good and you can't just get good by grinding out 12 hours a day on matchmaking, you need to focus on deliberate practice and get a team. | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
On June 19 2017 05:50 paxconsciente wrote: no, what it requires is good team play and coordination to get really good and you can't just get good by grinding out 12 hours a day on matchmaking, you need to focus on deliberate practice and get a team. OP was talking about getting to GE, which doesn't require that at all though. (and can be done by grinding MM a lot) | ||
|
mki
Poland882 Posts
| ||
|
ldv
United States103 Posts
| ||
|
N-KO
25 Posts
I think personally there isn't a single game that takes "talent" I reached high ranks in SCII CSGO and other stupid games that aren't esports, and a lot of people tell me it's about talent but really you just gotta put the hours in and be smart about them. Don't play at 4am and grind match making when you're half asleep, you may play for hours and hours but that's not efficient practice. That sort of thing. Another thing about CSGO is reaction time, and people say that it cannot be improved, however I did practice it with websites and lots of DM, and my reaction time went from 260ms to 170ms, so bullshit confirmed, and also another thing about reaction time is to aim at headshot level at a close distance from where people would come from, instead of aiming at a wider angle and reacting by flicking and shooting, and instead just reacting by clicking. These sorts of tricks make insane shots easier to make. | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
On June 18 2017 22:49 Epoxide wrote: You don't need some special talent to reach Global Elite. I did it, I mean come on. Lol yeah. But like any game practice gets you the level of talent you need to be competitive | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
Holy fuck, I am getting 147-153ms on average if I’m warmed up, pumped and only accidently get into 100ms territory. Controlled 90ms sounds fucking scary. And also literally inhuman These kinds of tests have an extra delay built-in because of the time that the computer and monitor take to display the test and consistent human visual reaction speeds in the realm of ~70ms are unheard of AFAIK, double that is already extremely fast. | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On June 20 2017 23:16 Cyro wrote: And also literally inhuman These kinds of tests have an extra delay built-in because of the time that the computer and monitor take to display the test and consistent human visual reaction speeds in the realm of ~70ms are unheard of AFAIK, double that is already extremely fast. Well there are runners that get close to 100ms, even though the 'average' top-athlete stays around 120-160ms, his friend is probably between 100 and 120 and the <90ms come from impressiveness of the test since that seems a reasonable margin of error. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On June 21 2017 00:24 waffelz wrote: Well there are runners that get close to 100ms, even though the 'average' top-athlete stays around 120-160ms, his friend is probably between 100 and 120 and the <90ms come from impressiveness of the test since that seems a reasonable margin of error. 90ms after the added delay from the system and monitor which is around 20ms even on an optimized setup? That'd be ~70ms IRL. | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On June 21 2017 00:33 Cyro wrote: 90ms after the added delay from the system and monitor which is around 20ms even on an optimized setup? That'd be ~70ms IRL. No I mean I believe the system would rather substract the delay from the monitor etc to display your actual value. Not that hes even faster^^ | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
| ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
So JWD[9] seems like your friend is either exaggerating a bit or he gets banned for a reason  | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
There is supposed to be a very large difference in reaction speed to auditory or visual stimulus. Something like 50-100ms I think. Yeah, audio is a lot faster than visual (maybe 50ms, haven't seen research in a while) http://cognitivefun.net/test/16 | ||
|
beg
991 Posts
Played 6 years of CS and became kinda good, high amateur level, but quit playing. Many years laters, CSGO got released and I started playing again. My skills still carried me to global elite easily! So, no. It's not talent. But to become a real pro... I don't know. Maybe it can be done. I just never was that good. Global elite is possible though! | ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
| ||
|
Faruko
Chile34171 Posts
but what is talent without propper hard work ? talent wont give you all those small details like map awareness for example. Michael Phelps trains twice a day every day bar sunday, Bolt goes to the gym 2 times a day for 90 minutes workout and thats without the normal run in the morning, again six days a week | ||
|
paxconsciente
Belgium91 Posts
On June 20 2017 02:41 ldv wrote: as with all things, talent is a baseless myth, and deliberate, high efficiency, professional practice is the right way to improve at anything. Talent isn't a myth but otherwise yea, you're right | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
one of the world's best supports in dota will say that although he's not very good at microing his hero, he's still just damn good at strategising and managing his team or, by contrast, one of the world's best cores will just blow your mind when you realise just how much mental focus and precision he has at controlling his hero personally i think 'talent' is very relevant. the chance of someone who is not particularly talented at something becoming very good at that thing over the space of 5, 10 or 20 years is going to be many-fold smaller than that of a person who is naturally good at things. yes, you can easily say it's possible for someone who is not talented to compete on the level of someone who is, and it's very easy to say 'they only have a 5 year head start', but how many people go on to be successful at something that they are on average 5 years worse than other people at doing at baseline? i ate an entire milkybar whilst writing this, that's how many people | ||
|
-Switch-
Canada506 Posts
| ||
|
Essbee
Canada2371 Posts
| ||
|
Kadungon
41 Posts
Yet some other people can come from seemingly nothing, and beat people with much more practice and experience. There are small children that somehow understand how to play chess decently, and they easily beat their peers or weak players. And they may also progress quickly. Other people have to struggle hard, read books, study games, do tactical exercises to get some improvement. https://sportsscientists.com/2012/03/10000-hours-vs-training-debate/ | ||
|
KrOjah
United Kingdom68 Posts
| ||
|
BaronSamedi
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
alpenrahm
Germany628 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11501 Posts
Skill Talent Reflexes Are all completely different things. Skill is the most obvious and also the least interesting. Skill just means "How good you are at the game". And as a tautology, if you have more skill (are better at the game) you are better at the game (win more). What exactly skill entails is usually very hard to describe exactly beyond "Whatever allows you to win more" Decisionmaking can be in there, and fast correct reactions to stuff. In a game like CS, Aim is probably also involved in skill. And coordinating with your team. In some games, like for example soloqueue in any multiplayer team game, skill can sometimes mostly consist of doing stuff that stops your team from turning toxic, and be mostly unrelated to the game itself. Skill is hard to pin down, and it is not defined where it comes from either. Talent on the other hand is some innate ability that some people have and others don't, which is especially not something that can be trained. While training can increase your performance, and thus your skill, it can by definition not increase your "talent". Once again it might be hard to clearly figure out what that talent exactly is. Reflexes on the other hand are usually a subset of skill, and often partially based in talent and partially based in training. Reflexes involve two parts. How quick you react to stimuli, and how correct that response is. Both of those can be just some innate ability which you have, but they can also be trained. More experience can lead to your brain reading a situation quicker and more correctly, leading to a quicker and more correct reaction to it. The main discussion here is about whether in CS-GO, your skill consists mostly of talent, or mostly of training. Or, to put it another way, what is more important? Your innate baseline abilities which you somehow have due to genetics or upbringing or whatever, or the concentrated training efforts you put into the game. Obviously both are relevant in some way, and most people would probably prefer it if training was the more important part. Because this leads to a much more satisfying narrative. If training is the most important thing, the people at the top are there because they worked harder and more efficiently than the others, and anyone has a chance to get there. If talent is more important, then the people at the top are there because they won the genetic lottery. As a comparison from another sport, in basketball your success is highly dependent on how large you are. Training is obviously necessary, but if you are 1.70m high, no matter how much you train, you will never be a top basketball player. On the other hand, if you are larger than 7 feet in the US, you have a high chance of playing in the NBA. So basketball is a sport which is based in talent (being very large) rather than training. | ||
|
willdiam
1 Post
| ||
|
alexstrem
Canada1 Post
| ||
|
xsnac
Barbados1365 Posts
| ||
|
Maddysonn
Australia2 Posts
| ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On September 26 2021 02:04 xsnac wrote: nah, I dont understand tallent and I believe there is no such thing. given a sample of players sure some will improve faster in the first 100 hours than others. but given a sample where everyone played 10.000 hours, they will all be quite the same. i would say that if you took a random off the street and gave them a game to play for 10,000 hours, the chances that they become as good as a pro is slim. | ||
|
ZoeHansen
United States5 Posts
| ||
| ||
