EPTCan't decide if its just ignorance, or trolling, or what.
Study: Players start slowing down at age 24 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
HelpMeGetBetter
United States763 Posts
Can't decide if its just ignorance, or trolling, or what. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
Also, remember that a person with 600 APM slowing down will not become 60 APM over night...its just natural aging. | ||
|
InvictusRage
United States230 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:11 nkr wrote: I would rather read the statistics saying that players above the age of 24 are slightly slower, not that you get slower after the age of 24. There are other factors not taken into account that can give you the same result. This is serious scholarship, guys. Unless, having actually read the article, you can point to a particular factor that they didn't take into account, you shouldn't just assume that they didn't consider it and integrate it into the work. Let me repeat that: this is obviously serious scholarship, published in a peer-reviewed journal. There's a ton of generic "Oh, I dunno about that" in this thread by people who obviously haven't actually read the piece. This isn't some dude saying 'oh, you know, you can just tell that they're slower;' this is a rigorous statistical assessment of a substantial data set. If you're not going to read it, at least give it the credit that peer-review deserves. | ||
|
PresenceSc2
Australia4032 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
| ||
|
HelpMeGetBetter
United States763 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:20 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: I love these players/people/threads that STILL proclaim APM equals skill/knowledge. Can't decide if its just ignorance, or trolling, or what. Also, I'm 30. And I've been improving over the past couple months.... | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
extreme example is Go (board game), best performanced people (only fulltime players) if you are 17 or 18. ~22yo in Go is like 33 in football relating to performance. | ||
|
EndlessViolence
114 Posts
| ||
|
Nethune
United States22 Posts
| ||
|
InvictusRage
United States230 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:40 Nethune wrote: At the same time, there are numerous studies stating that you can practically re-wire your brain - this is by no means a 'law' that at age 24 you're not going to play as well as you do/did. The study doesn't say that. The study says that, in general, people start getting worse at a particular aspect of playing SC2 around age 24. That is substantially different from saying that, starting at age 24, you're not going to play as well as you used to. | ||
|
Larkin
United Kingdom7161 Posts
| ||
|
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:26 InvictusRage wrote: This is serious scholarship, guys. Unless, having actually read the article, you can point to a particular factor that they didn't take into account, you shouldn't just assume that they didn't consider it and integrate it into the work. Let me repeat that: this is obviously serious scholarship, published in a peer-reviewed journal. There's a ton of generic "Oh, I dunno about that" in this thread by people who obviously haven't actually read the piece. This isn't some dude saying 'oh, you know, you can just tell that they're slower;' this is a rigorous statistical assessment of a substantial data set. If you're not going to read it, at least give it the credit that peer-review deserves. I've read it, and I don't disagree with their methods or findings, only the conclusion they've drawn. The statistics DO show that the older players are slower, but not that a player gets slower as he/she gets older. If you wanted to measure the impact of age on a persons reaction times, you'd have to gather data from the same set of people over a period of time relevant to the study, and having them maintain the same effort of playing during that period. The statistics simply do not show that players get slower as they get older, because that's not what the gathered data means in my humble opinion. It shows that the older players are slower. There is a significant distinction to be made here, in my eyes. | ||
|
Chaplin
42 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:31 Dingodile wrote: Nothing new, but it is true that you can't show great performance anymore ( ~80% chance) if your are >25. extreme example is Go (board game), best performanced people (only fulltime players) if you are 17 or 18. ~22yo in Go is like 33 in football relating to performance. Go Seigen (said to be one of the strongest players of all time) dominated the japanese Go world (in its prime) for over twenty years in ten-game matches, starting with around 20 years. (Sensei's Library) Yi Ch'ang-ho "is considered to have been the strongest player in the world from around 1995 through 2006" (Sensei's Library), while being 20-31 years old. Yi Se-tol "is known for being regarded as the best player in the world in 2008 and 2010-2" (Sensei's Library), while being 25-29 years old. Gu Li "is one of the strongest players in the world" (Sensei's Library) and won his first international title with 24 (promoting him to 9-dan). --- I didn't read the study but as long as human history keeps refuting data suggesting something like "too young / too old / unlikely / impossible", I don't need to ^^ | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
| ||
|
Cassalina
United States65 Posts
In the USA - 24 is the age where college/work-life transition kind of begins. Gaming can still be taken seriously, but not nearly as serious as a younger gamer that is not in such an important transition period. In Korea, where gaming is taken (in my experience and knowledge) much more seriously as far as career goes. I think Europe is similar to the USA when it comes to school/workforce transition in life, but I honestly think that has a LOT to do with it. Motor skills, and reaction times - hm i have a really hard time believing that has anything to do with the decline, as I believe just lack of time investment is the true reason. There are people that transition from gaming - college - to careers that require EXTREMELY good reaction times and motor skills (on a professional level, from engineering, to law enforcment, medicine) - some of the jobs where the decision making and consequence of a mistake are much more dire than sc2 (sc2 you can recover from mistakes whereas precision in some careers are very unforgiving). with that said, i think this has a lot to do with the age of the game, the transitionary periods that people take in their 20's (which are extremely important in western countries, ESPECIALLY the USA - i can't stress enough that this period being a "pro gamer" in your mid twenties is something that might hurt you more than help you in this country at this age, when it comes to relationships, career, personal financing, and school). My opinion. I am 29 now, and I have transitioned to more casual games (like WoW), and I'm not the warcraft 3 or starcraft legend I once was, not so much because of my reaction times slowing down or anything, but more with my invested time. I was a semi-pro at warcraft 3 when i was 17 through college. I only achieved that goal through practice. I just don't have the time to invest in the game anymore. I'm just one example, but I think this is a study that should continue, and hopefully they continue to explore it a lot more. Great post and keep us posted on what you find! please, because I think it's already interesting as is... Gaming is like a sport, and even in professional sports, we see athletes decline at certain ages (in certain sports), so it would be interesting to see some conclusions drawn here. I just hope the data gets broken down a little more - taking culture, country, etc. into account.  | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On April 12 2014 00:46 InvictusRage wrote: The study doesn't say that. The study says that, in general, people start getting worse at a particular aspect of playing SC2 around age 24. That is substantially different from saying that, starting at age 24, you're not going to play as well as you used to. Hmm, that's not that far either? If you start getting worse at some particular aspect of the game, all other things being equal, it's tough to argue that you can continue playing as well as you did. Unless you had like "too many APMs for the game", but I don't think anyone has that problem. Unless you meant "maybe the study doesn't apply to you", in which case, well: no shit. | ||
|
InvictusRage
United States230 Posts
On April 12 2014 01:01 nkr wrote: I've read it, and I don't disagree with their methods or findings, only the conclusion they've drawn. The statistics DO show that the older players are slower, but not that a player gets slower as he/she gets older. If you wanted to measure the impact of age on a persons reaction times, you'd have to gather data from the same set of people over a period of time relevant to the study, and having them maintain the same effort of playing during that period. The statistics simply do not show that players get slower as they get older, because that's not what the gathered data means in my humble opinion. It shows that the older players are slower. There is a significant distinction to be made here, in my eyes. Certainly that's a relevant distinction, but the paper discusses possible other explanations and argues that they are not as likely as age-related decline. You're entirely correct that the data shows that the older players are slower, but the authors also argue that it's not because of any differences (besides age) in the under-24 and over-24 cohorts. For example, they go into detail as to why the slowdown likely isn't because the older players were exposed to RTS games at a later age. But my original post was probably too antagonistic, and picked your post out because it was the more recent when there were definitely much more egregious examples of the problem in the thread, so I should be more careful in the future. | ||
|
InvictusRage
United States230 Posts
On April 12 2014 01:14 ZenithM wrote: Hmm, that's not that far either? If you start getting worse at some particular aspect of the game, all other things being equal, it's tough to argue that you can continue playing as well as you did. Unless you had like "too many APMs for the game", but I don't think anyone has that problem. Unless you meant "maybe the study doesn't apply to you", in which case, well: no shit. They actually explicitly argue that for any particular person, the other things aren't really equal. For example, for any particular person, age is related to increased experience, which means that age-related decline is counterbalanced to a varying extent with experience-related improvement in other areas. But also, it's important to highlight the distinction between claims about populations and claims about individuals. The paper argues that, as a group, people older than 24 will be slower than people younger than 24. But that does not imply that any particular person will start getting slower, just that in general, people get slower starting (roughly) at 24. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On April 12 2014 01:06 Chaplin wrote: I didn't read the study but as long as human history keeps refuting data suggesting something like "too young / too old / unlikely / impossible", I don't need to ^^ This is such a mentally weak statement. If we were to just rate speed from 1 to 100 for any sport. Michael Jordan may have been winning later in his career while having declined to 80 from a peak when he wasn't winning at 85. Jordan was never the fastest player. There have been so many serious studies on how professional athletes quickness slows down starting around 27-29 for most athletes and independent studies also show that chess players brains begin to slow down in processing speed around the same time. Luckily for both speed isn't the only factor. In chess having a greater knowledge base helps the older players, etc. So human history has never refuted anything in the article. Its stupid to even suggest this doesn't happen as every single person on the planet knows that you don't play in the NFL until you are 75...the German side at this world cup is not featuring Kahn or Matthaus or Beckenbauer. Brazil isn't featuring Pele and Ronaldo. To even suggest that the overwhelming body of common sense and the already established same aspects happening in other sports doesn't exist is akin to proclaiming the world is flat and not round. | ||
|
Scones
Wales99 Posts
| ||
| ||
