"Not Good enough to even be cheap" | Forums

[Kharneth88]

Winning the fight does not make you the more skilled person.

Ask any fighter in real life. Any video game fighter. Any person who ever competes in anything, be it sports or games. Many, many things can happen and a single win does not determine who is the more skillful. It's easy to say that whoever is the winner is the more skilled and that it makes no sense to claim anything else. But skill is not determined by success. You can play very unskillfully and still win a fight just like you can play very skillfully and still lose. What determines skill is the average wins and losses. The success when looked at in a larger view, not a single battle.

[Butonfly]

Winning the fight does not make you the more skilled person.

Ask any fighter in real life. Any video game fighter. Any person who ever competes in anything, be it sports or games. Many, many things can happen and a single win does not determine who is the more skillful. It's easy to say that whoever is the winner is the more skilled and that it makes no sense to claim anything else. But skill is not determined by success. You can play very unskillfully and still win a fight just like you can play very skillfully and still lose. What determines skill is the average wins and losses. The success when looked at in a larger view, not a single battle.

You've not actually added anything here. The last sentence of your paragraph actually summarizes it all, only you leave it begging for context. What is the larger view? We're talking about success, yes. Skill is determined by your success, whether good or bad. When you break it down, the larger view is merely a question of whether you won or lost. Obviously as you climb the skill mountain, trying to ascertain the peak of perfection, or whatever plateau you hope to achieve along the way, you're going to experience both wins and losses. You test your mettle vs opponents also climbing their own skill mountains. The simple fact is that the only true measure you can hope for when determining your skill is whether or not you won, or lost. The individual battle is supremely important. Not to the exclusion of determining your skill, but as the only viable measure along the path.

There is a skill ceiling, and the truly competitive players will obtain the position of "most skilled". They'll be the ones investing the time and energy into the game to compete in tournaments. And they'll whittle eachother down to find out who's ahead. For the majority of players they'll funnel their ways into larger, swathing skill groups and (assuming a decent matchmaking system is in place XD) go in circles sharpening themselves against their peers. Never the less, the measure of "how skilled am I?" is determined by if you beat your opponent, or not. Did you play to win, or did you succumb to your own flesh.

[Kharneth88]

You've not actually added anything here. The last sentence of your paragraph actually summarizes it all, only you leave it begging for context. What is the larger view? We're talking about success, yes. Skill is determined by your success, whether good or bad. When you break it down, the larger view is merely a question of whether you won or lost. Obviously as you climb the skill mountain, trying to ascertain the peak of perfection, or whatever plateau you hope to achieve along the way, you're going to experience both wins and losses. You test your mettle vs opponents also climbing their own skill mountains. The simple fact is that the only true measure you can hope for when determining your skill is whether or not you won, or lost. The individual battle is supremely important. Not to the exclusion of determining your skill, but as the only viable measure along the path.

There is a skill ceiling, and the truly competitive players will obtain the position of "most skilled". They'll be the ones investing the time and energy into the game to compete in tournaments. And they'll whittle eachother down to find out who's ahead. For the majority of players they'll funnel their ways into larger, swathing skill groups and (assuming a decent matchmaking system is in place XD) go in circles sharpening themselves against their peers. Never the less, the measure of "how skilled am I?" is determined by if you beat your opponent, or not. Did you play to win, or did you succumb to your own flesh.

My point:

You cannot determine a player's skill based on the performance of a single fight. You can determine a player's skill based on the performance of hundreds of fights. Combining the information give for a player's dueling KDA, Win:Loss ratio, and understanding how many of those fights were against bots vs other players and how many of those fights were during the training stages versus during the time the player actually had memorized his/her moveset and understood the basics of playing the class is the way to understand someone's skill.

The point is, skill is not something that can be numerically determined and it is not something that can be seen within the span of a single battle or even a single day (in this conext, as a day is quite long for a game).

I adamantly disagree with the people who claim that the more skilled player is the person who won. I personally have beaten enemies who were more skilled than me. I have beaten enemies purely by throwing them off cliffs, which takes very little skill but grants a high success rate. I have beaten people accidentally because I clicked the wrong buttons. I have also lost to people who were really bad because I made a couple mistakes tacked onto being thrown off the edge one too many times.

Any competitor knows that no competition is guaranteed. Even when you're facing the easiest fight of your life, there is no amount of skill that will assure your success.

[Vagor_D]

You've not actually added anything here. The last sentence of your paragraph actually summarizes it all, only you leave it begging for context. What is the larger view? We're talking about success, yes. Skill is determined by your success, whether good or bad. When you break it down, the larger view is merely a question of whether you won or lost. Obviously as you climb the skill mountain, trying to ascertain the peak of perfection, or whatever plateau you hope to achieve along the way, you're going to experience both wins and losses. You test your mettle vs opponents also climbing their own skill mountains. The simple fact is that the only true measure you can hope for when determining your skill is whether or not you won, or lost. The individual battle is supremely important. Not to the exclusion of determining your skill, but as the only viable measure along the path.

There is a skill ceiling, and the truly competitive players will obtain the position of "most skilled". They'll be the ones investing the time and energy into the game to compete in tournaments. And they'll whittle eachother down to find out who's ahead. For the majority of players they'll funnel their ways into larger, swathing skill groups and (assuming a decent matchmaking system is in place XD) go in circles sharpening themselves against their peers. Never the less, the measure of "how skilled am I?" is determined by if you beat your opponent, or not. Did you play to win, or did you succumb to your own flesh.

After reading your posts it has become quite apparent that you are full of yourself and you seem to believe that reality bends to your whims (you are presenting your opinions as fact, learn the difference.)

I am going to point at the 800 lb. gorilla in your room: You have stated, numerous times, that skill can only be measured by who finishes on top. Yet you have not taken into account that any scrub can get lucky (even a broken clock is right twice a day,) a n00b can happen to have a better connection to the network, lag switches are easy to make and there are tutorials for them everywhere, and mods are a dime a dozen. These are just a few of the ways that a less skilled player can beat a more highly skilled player and are factors that cannot be ignored by anyone that isn't attempting to live in a bubble.

[The_Mensan]

yes, an actual insult that was thrown at me. Got into a duel and the first thing that happens the warden throws me off a ledge. I say lets not start with that lameness, then the cheap shoulder charges and stun locks begin, peppered with "you just suck, you are horrible, you cant play" mind you this is half way through the second round and i was mercilessly thrown off a ledge before any hits were exchanged in the first round. other player wins after continuing to tell me how horrible i am at the game and as the valk i have a wide range of unblockable trips to use and "you arent even good enough to be cheap". i dont spam those attacks but use them sparingly and situationally. Maybe im old school, maybe my definition of "good" isnt inline with the mainstream definition, but ive always thought that if you were cheap, it wasnt because you were skilled or talented, but rather you were the opposite. I main as a valk and try very hard not to do the lame shield bash leg sweep stun lock combos repeatedly and endlessly. it happens in those specific situations where appropriate but its not a main staple of my tactics.

I offer this story to ask for discussion, civil and constructive please. Does being cheap, or abusing cheap, unblockable disable comboes make a player "good"? Does utilizing a classes entire toolbox with effectiveness make a player "good"? in the end does it even matter so long as the kills are up, the deaths are down and your order is done?

Also, to be clear this isnt a complaint. Personally i find enjoyment in trying to find solutions to these cheap tactics so i can improve my play and get better at the game. Also im not that bad at playing this game either, im elite pro either.I have good rounds and bad, im better against some players and styles and horrible against others. But not good enough to be cheap? thats just strange

Actually, this is similar to "good" in school and "good" in the real world. In school, you might be "good" if you can memorize theories... At work, no one CARES how hard you work or how much effort you put in or your past achievements, the bottomline is "Can you make me some money"? Yes or No?

Maybe in some fantasy world, "Good" can be qualified with a bunch of rules and explanation... But in the real world, "GOOD" is how well you can achieve a goal. His goal was simple, he wanted to see "You Win" on his screen and he's achieving it constantly and you are failing to do so. Period.

[The_Mensan]

After reading your posts it has become quite apparent that you are full of yourself and you seem to believe that reality bends to your whims (you are presenting your opinions as fact, learn the difference.)

I am going to point at the 800 lb. gorilla in your room: You have stated, numerous times, that skill can only be measured by who finishes on top. Yet you have not taken into account that any scrub can get lucky (even a broken clock is right twice a day,) a n00b can happen to have a better connection to the network, lag switches are easy to make and there are tutorials for them everywhere, and mods are a dime a dozen. These are just a few of the ways that a less skilled player can beat a more highly skilled player and are factors that cannot be ignored by anyone that isn't attempting to live in a bubble.

A SINGLE win... doesn't mean you are more skilled. But is that "cheap" player getting "lucky" and beating the original poster? No. He's just better. He will push the OP off the cliff every single freaking time. You are moving the goal post and trying to make an entirely different argument. A lucky "noob" will not win more than 50% of the time against a superior player, period.

Just like ANYONE can win a single hand of poker against any top pro in the world, but if you play a few thousand hands with a top pro, you WILL LOSE.

Success is the product of winning. You know I feel like people from different world are going to believe in different things. I know some people who would always blame their failures (in life) on some random BS and believe other people's success are "lucky". These are the same people who never plan ahead, doesn't use any logic in decision making and somehow believes he should "win".

What made you believe the OP should win? There's cliff... He's not better at throwing people off that cliff. SO WHAT MAKES HIM supposedly "better"? Some made-up rules? Some moral issue? The game makers (Gods) in this case decided that cliff kills are allowed. The OP is the idiot who didn't learn fast enough. We play by society's rules to get ahead, we don't blame the rules for holding our talented snowflakes back...

[Butonfly]

After reading your posts it has become quite apparent that you are full of yourself and you seem to believe that reality bends to your whims (you are presenting your opinions as fact, learn the difference.)

I am going to point at the 800 lb. gorilla in your room: You have stated, numerous times, that skill can only be measured by who finishes on top. Yet you have not taken into account that any scrub can get lucky (even a broken clock is right twice a day,) a n00b can happen to have a better connection to the network, lag switches are easy to make and there are tutorials for them everywhere, and mods are a dime a dozen. These are just a few of the ways that a less skilled player can beat a more highly skilled player and are factors that cannot be ignored by anyone that isn't attempting to live in a bubble.

What's fascinating here is that you're reduced to introducing an 800 lb. gorilla into the room. Yet all reasonable people intuitively know that introducing cheating, or the unfortunate side effects of unintended lag (network shortcomings) is not to be considered in the actual determination of victory. The game can't tell the difference, so things proceed regardless. However in something like a tournament, there's often rules to facilitate such mishaps (or outright punish them) and agreements for do overs often occur. For the casual player base, we just shrug our shoulders and move on, knowing that a true assessment of our skill couldn't occur because of some anomaly. In otherwords: **** happens.

This is so self apparent it's redundant to even talk about it. But since you insisted on erecting your gorilla as some sort of strawman with which to burn on my part as some display, it's had to be addressed.

The only other thing you've offered is a personal attack. You can call me full of myself, or suggest I'm being unreasonable all you want. It doesnt add anything to the argument. At best all you're doing is swinging about opinions. I'm sorry you're taking this discussion so personally. These are my beliefs. This is how I approach competitive (PvP) games. When determining skill, I know that the guy who gets the win/s is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FApb-jEmcQ