The gap between good players and bad players

[Yugl]

But if you really want to discuss the inane finer points of optimal gameplay it would likely be someone who is knowledgeable about the fight, their job, gameplay mechanics, prior experience, a quiet environment, teamspeak or ventrillo, good multitasking skills, healthy overall, an average to above average IQ and reaction time and fairly decent memory, and a good attitude about what they are doing in that moment.

That's BS. I've met idiots that play this game incredibly well. For some reason, people associate good players with smart players. That's simply not the case.

Edit: Mr. OP I don't see how figuring out how "shallow" (Or Easy I'm assuming by your examples) this game is contributes to anything important. Apparently I missed it in the first post. Also, does knowing the way to Kazham count as being an awesome-super-badass-elite player?!

[BRP]

This has nothing to do with finding exact numbers. And it certainly doesn't have much to do with someone having an off day or something detrimental. You are talking about insignificant crap. If the game is even reasonably deep the difference between a novice and an expert will visible to anyone with an understanding for the game. The greater the difference the more obvious it would be.

Spoiler: show

And yet it is misleading to think of these three attributes as fundamentally separate, because it is complexity that gives rise to depth, and depth that makes skillful play possible. It is logically impossible for us to conceive of them separately, as they are in fact related in an exactly linear fashion: Each new meaningful rule makes a game more complex, and gives the player some extra work to do in order to learn it. Each new rule interacts with the existing rules in new and increasingly complicated ways, creating an ever-widening realm of possibilities which the player is called upon to grasp. The better he grasps them the more capable he becomes in using them to his advantage, and thus the more skillfully he can play.

It is indeed even possible to measure the absolute complexity of a game (and therefore its depth, and therefore the degree of skillful play that it allows) by simply measuring the maximum distance between the best and worst possible players. In our coin toss game that distance is zero. The best and worst possible players are forced to play exactly the same way (press the button; make a random guess), so that it is impossible for us to even distinguish them. In the most complex games yet made, Civilization, say, or Marvel vs. Capcom, or Supreme Commander, that distance is so great that the best player always towers above the worst like an invincible, untouchable god. (Note that the game does not have to support versus play in order for us to measure this distance. Skill disparity can easily be measured even in single-player games, usually in a number of different ways determined by the nature of the game in question.)

If the first bit of the quote confuses you: rules are simply the game's mechanics. They control everything involving interaction including the battle system(the focus.)

Also note that rules can cancel each other out or can not change the equation at all. This is why it is important to only consider useful abilities and spells. (This doesn't mean a spell couldn't be cast or something, but rather there would be no reason to for strategic play. ie Thunder IV vs Thunder II)

This is purely in the realm of mechanics. Ripping someone off or whatever out of world stuff like friendship doesn't fall into the equation despite having a huge effect.

Also I doubt FFXI is up there as a game that requires a high IQ to play. Or even an average one. EDIT: Few games require "brute" intelligence. You can usually learn your way to mastery for most genres.

[Thitaubian]

I browsed a bit on the link TheStig posted earlier.
Found some semi related topics to our discussion, also a good read.

[url=http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html]Game Design, Psychology, Flow, and Mastery - Articles - Playing to Win, Part

[BRP]

David Sirlin has some good things to say about competitive game design(which means skillful), especially when it comes to balancing options. Check him out further if you are interested.

[Sheebs]

This has nothing to do with finding exact numbers. And it certainly doesn't have much to do with someone having an off day or something detrimental. You are talking about insignificant crap. If the game is even reasonably deep the difference between a novice and an expert will visible to anyone with an understanding for the game. The greater the difference the more obvious it would be.

Also I doubt FFXI is up there as a game that requires a high IQ to play. Or even an average one. EDIT: Few games require "brute" intelligence. You can usually learn your way to mastery for most genres.

The terms of this debate are not concrete, definable or static, therefore its all speculation and opinion. It's your opinion that I am talking about "insignificant crap" but the fact remains you couldn't produce any semblance of a scientific study to back up any of this theory of "skilled vs. unskilled" players. The fact that you wouldn't even control for outside variables indicates you have no real understanding of a Systems theory in general or scientific theory in general. You posed a question, and a poorly defined one, in which several people have identified inconsistencies, yet you get defensive when they are pointed out.

Of course there is no minimum IQ to play final fantasy..... was never anything in my post to imply that. I have no idea what "brute" intelligence means, I assume that is some sort of slang for the term intellectual quotient. But, reaction times, decision making, memory, and spatial familiarity are actual things measured by standardized intelligence tests (the ones you take off the internet do not count...). If you are going to argue something argue that 1) Intelligence tests have not been proven to measure these things or 2) Reaction times, decision making, memory, and spatial familiarity have no impact on video games. But if you do be sure to cite some actual scientific resources on the evidence of this.

I am by no means saying a person with a higher IQ plays this game better then a person with a lower IQ (only a true idiot would make that leap). I am saying its ONE variable to be considered when discussing playing skill in this environment.

It was mentioned earlier that a few people were named and considered "skilled players" , several of which had created livejournals for purpose of testing things. One of which Genome was mentioned, who also happens to be a scientist in real life, and very intelligent. He values numbers, statistics and actual scientific research on his Monk testing.

Anyway, pure reaction times have little to do with thinking, and many games are just that. FFXI is probably a little deeper then pure reaction, but in the end we are still talking about a video game.

[Asmoranomar]

While I agree skilled players involve some sort of knowing and applying, this tends to occur naturally for all players. Good examples are - manaburn, sleep rotations, FC+Stun, <insert your own>, etc. The first time these things came out, they were pretty epic - reserved for only the skilled. Now its commonplace - So much that if you don't know what these things are you are broke.

This means that this gap your looking for is constantly changing. As new methods for playing jobs are developed, there will be a moment where more and more people will take on this new found 'skill' and make it common.

I'd like to think that, in addition to Knowledge and Application, there has to be an active role in learning more about your particular job (or event, or whatever) to be classified as 'skilled'. This doesn't mean 'Read about DRK KC Zerg' -> 'Build DRK KC Zerg'. It means taking your own initiative to figure out more (and I don't mean in terms swapping gear for better DPS).

As much as you guys probably hate self proclaimers - the best examples I can give are my own. I don't really consider this on the level of 'Amazingly Epic Skilled Player', but you can tell that I really get into my job and I try to learn every facet and make use of it.

Some examples:

Every BRD knows about Fast Cast and -Song Spellcasting Time. Minstrel's Ring (-25% SST) is triggered by latent <76%. How BRD's trigger this latent is open for interpretation. Most get hit or have an -HP macro, I make use of every piece of +HP I can find. Effectively, I never have to lose HP and I can always trigger my latent. This is very hard to pull off if your rocking every piece of FC and SST gear (Marduk anyone? can't wear Genbu Helm and Seiryu Gloves! that's 100HP in two slots! ouch!), and only taru's can do it. Did I mention this has transforms the latent to: Pissing your WHM's off (or alternately - Never getting cured.)

Another: I'm tired of reading String is worthless. Especially coming from people who have 0 string skill to begin with. And when looking for solid information as to what string can (or cannot) do, I found out one thing - No one had done any significant research on string! I'm not talking about magic accuracy - I'm talking the basics of the basics here. String range is known to increase based on String Skill and the song's level. 3 year's after BRD was introduced, my BRD dings to 75 and there's not a single piece of information on how to use stringed instruments! I spent hours researching range increases for various songs and put it up on a nice chart on otherwiki. It didn't really change my playstyle much, but at least I had a better picture when it came to justifying the reasons to keep my string gear and using harp in dynamis for ballads.

Like I said, not epic by any means, but you can see where I took the time to actively learn my job - not just copy the current trend.

[Klaatu]

What's the point of this? It's not going to change the balance of skill in any given game nor will it accomplish anythign other than few people throw their e-dicks around for no good reason other than to make them feel better about playing a video game.

[BRP]

Could you have missed the point more? This was never a debate. It was me asking for examples of skill and challenge in FFXI(maybe those could be debated) so we can determine the gap between good and bad players. What good is your opinion when it is off-topic? Take this to another thread in gaming(or spam) and I'll tell you there how ridiculous you are for demanding scientific proof for something that exists right in front of you. The rest of your posts here probably won't hold anything insight so I won't bother. Lets not derail the thread.

While I agree skilled players involve some sort of knowing and applying, this tends to occur naturally for all players. Good examples are - manaburn, sleep rotations, FC+Stun, <insert your own>, etc. The first time these things came out, they were pretty epic - reserved for only the skilled. Now its commonplace - So much that if you don't know what these things are you are broke.

These techniques are actually simplifying the game(well not all neat tricks like that, some of them can add complexity) so it isn't a surprise that it would shrink the distance between worst and best. This would show FFXI's mechanics being a least a little bit shallow. And the trend you describe is a common occurrence of gaming(and all competitions). These additions will either make the game deeper for granting more options or shallower for replacing more than one.

[Yugl]

What's the point of this? It's not going to change the balance of skill in any given game nor will it accomplish anythign other than few people throw their e-dicks around for no good reason other than to make them feel better about playing a video game.

I asked this earlier, and apparently I missed it in the OP. If you find it for me send a PM!

This Thread = More recently version of Gaea's "How much do TH+ items affect TH!" Thread.

[Charismatic]

You're a moron.

[Sheebs]

Could you have missed the point more? This was never a debate. It was me asking for examples of skill and challenge in FFXI(maybe those could be debated) so we can determine the gap between good and bad players. What good is your opinion when it is off-topic? Take this to another thread in gaming(or spam) and I'll tell you there how ridiculous you are for demanding scientific proof for something that exists right in front of you. The rest of your posts here probably won't hold anything insight so I won't bother. Lets not derail the thread.

I am debating the overall benefit of this thread and why you care about determining the gap between good and bad players (in your words). I am with this guy. This entire thread serves no insight, nothing is gained, nobody is a better player for it, and I am not sure why its in this section. The rest of this thread holds no insight so I won't bother reading. Have at your e-peen blather.

What's the point of this? It's not going to change the balance of skill in any given game nor will it accomplish anythign other than few people throw their e-dicks around for no good reason other than to make them feel better about playing a video game.

I was under the impression threads in this section actually made some sort of contribution.

[Klaatu]

It's not entirely off-topic. I think it's pointless to try to find how big the gap is, because ideas like this alienate a veteran crowd from newer members who have potential to be good or even greater than some of the veterans in this game given a chance.

I deal with players of all caliber on daily basis, just like anyone else who posts here. All I know is I'm good enough to know I can use improvement no matter what I do, because there's always room for growth.

Sorry I didn't answer in exact words you expected it to be and lulz at you challenging my posts.

[spooky]

The only gap between good and bad players is if you know what the fuck you are doing. (Experience / looking stuff up online.) Possibly coupled with how old you are (mentaly?) - people who are childish and dick about will fuck things up for other people.

/thread

Also lol@comparing FFXI to Go

[BRP]

I've already laid down a foundation for my reasoning. I'll repeat it in a second time(and only this time), but what good will it do? I don't think you are really interested in knowing why. You will say some bullshit like "opinions" and "its subjective," as if they are are outside the reach of reason. Klaatu you seem to be paranoid about becoming called a noob as if this thread is about evil elitists showing off their muscle. You missed the point.

Here is your insight: The distance between bad and good players is how far you can grow in a game. In other words your skill and its depth. Skill fills up the depth. A bad player lacks the skill so he should have no grasp of the game's depth. But if he is only a short distance away from a good player then the game's depth is relatively small compared to more complex games. For an even better explanation look at the spoilered quote I recently posted.

In that same quote, it is mentioned how you measure their difference: competition. In the case of a single player it would need to be competition against the CPU. In this case it would be monsters like HNMs or NMs from missions or battlefields or whatever is most difficult.

Now FFXI has a lot of crazy rules like 20 jobs and hundreds of spells and abilities and weapon skills. But rules can be meaninglessly complex. Rules/Complexity that fail to add depth are meaningless. So what the purpose of this thread is to measure FFXI's depth. It is to decide whether FFXI is a superficial or not.

I can't dumb this down any further. If you don't understand or don't want to understand I can't tell you anything else. And before you bring up some science experiment bullshit - you don't need to prove what already exists. Look at any game and you will find this be true(there is your evidence.) Games are made up of rules. More rules = complexity. Meaningful complexity = depth. Depth = more to learn = skill.

lol@comparing FFXI to Go

Would you believe they are both games?

[spooky]

I'll just leave you to dig your own hole. This is going no where fast.
There's no interesting philosophical debate here; which is what you seem to be looking for.

If you'd played much of Go to any reasonable level, then you would know that it's just silly to say that any video game is on par with it. (Unless you were playing Go online, I guess...)

[BRP]

I'll just leave you to dig your own hole. This is going no where fast.
There's no interesting philosophical debate here; which is what you seem to be looking for.

If you'd played much of Go to any reasonable level, then you would know that it's just silly to say that any video game is on par with it. (Unless you were playing Go online, I guess...)

I am sorry weeaboo that you misunderstood me, but I hold Go above all videogames. This is because Go has had over a thousand years to be perfected and has been the favorite game of asian intellectuals for at least 500 of them.

To be honest I already got a lot of out of this thread, but there is still more to discuss if anyone cares to. EDIT: But only with smart people who I don't need to explain the OP over and over again to.

[Thitaubian]

Spoiler: show

I've already laid down a foundation for my reasoning. I'll repeat it in a second time(and only this time), but what good will it do? I don't think you are really interested in knowing why. You will say some bullshit like "opinions" and "its subjective," as if they are are outside the reach of reason. Klaatu you seem to be paranoid about becoming called a noob as if this thread is about evil elitists showing off their muscle. You missed the point.

Here is your insight: The distance between bad and good players is how far you can grow in a game. In other words your skill and its depth. Skill fills up the depth. A bad player lacks the skill so he should have no grasp of the game's depth. But if he is only a short distance away from a good player then the game's depth is relatively small compared to more complex games. For an even better explanation look at the spoilered quote I recently posted.

In that same quote, it is mentioned how you measure their difference: competition. In the case of a single player it would need to be competition against the CPU. In this case it would be monsters like HNMs or NMs from missions or battlefields or whatever is most difficult.

Now FFXI has a lot of crazy rules like 20 jobs and hundreds of spells and abilities and weapon skills. But rules can be meaninglessly. Rules/Complexity that fail to add depth are meaningless. So what the purpose of this thread is to measure FFXI's depth. It is to decide whether FFXI is a superficial or not.

I can't dumb this down any further. If you don't understand or don't want to understand I can't tell you anything else. And before you bring up some science experiment bullshit - you don't need to prove what already exists. Look at any game and you will find this be true(there is your evidence.) Games are made up of rules. More rules = complexity. Meaningful complexity = depth. Depth = more to learn = skill.



Would you believe they are both games?

In order for FFXI to become more skill driven and less driven by being prepared (having the right jobs for the right task) many more abilities would need to be added.

All jobs would need to be able to to some form of crowd control, healing, damage, tanking, debuffing, buffing.
This is possible if SE allows sub jobs to do this.
We have a healing sub job (dnc) tanking sub job (nin) not sure if we really need a DD sub job as much as the ability for all jobs to deal damage. What is missing is the add control sub job and a meaningful buff/debuff SJ (no /cor or /brd don't cut it).

If this were realized we could take any combination of jobs to any event. (Ok, maybe not any but its the general idea.)
Imaging finding parties for 'insert X event here' by simply shouting for members not healer/buffer/dd jobs.
But it would be an entirely new game of sorts. People would actually have to use their abilities in a non-cookiecutter fashion regularly.

Actually I believe even if SE manages to add and balance enough abilities players will not budge from their cookie cutter ways.
Everyday is see shouts for mission BCs from people I know have the jobs and abilities (not always the skill and/or gear) to solo/duo/trio those mission BCs. Yet they keep shouting. When I try nudging them towards alternative strategies some try them, some succeed, some fail. Most of them though, declare me insane and want no further word of it.

Maybe this really is were SE is slowly trying to lead the game. Who knows. But browsing Sirlins sight gave me a better understanding of the depth and goal of this topic.

[spooky]

This is because Go has had over a thousand years to be perfected and has been the favorite game of asian intellectuals for at least 500 of them.

I know, I'm 8 kyu. What rank are you? Perhaps we should have a game?

To be honest I already got a lot of out of this thread, but there is still more to discuss if anyone cares to.

Judging by the responses thus far, I think it's safe to say no one does.

Anyway, I'm in Japan now, so I'm off to play real Go with real asian intellectuals! (Old men that smoke a lot.)

[BRP]

Oh god, you are worst than Senoska. And this isn't the first page, go take a look back.

Also I am not some Go expect. So I am going to have to turn down your weak attempt to sound tough or whatever you are trying to do here. I am sure there are plenty of old men who want to play with your kyu.

Thitaubian you shouldn't get your hopes up. Balancing doesn't always mean for a skillful game. I don't think SE is all that interested in either.

[shaddix]

the purpose of this thread is to measure FFXI's depth. It is to decide whether FFXI is a superficial or not.

If you are measuring efficiency then yes there is a nasty gap between good/bad. But if you are measuring based on success/failure as determined by what SE defines as success/failure(as in not lowmanning shit) then there is like no gap at all lol. But we(the good players here) spend a lot of our time making up slack that is the gap between us and the bad players.