"Yes." - all iconic newcomers of the last 5 years in quake's top 10 Kappa

Well, speaking for myself I'd say that it's true that not everyone is going to have the same level of skill no matter how long they've worked at it. There's so much room for improvement for those who have the proper mindset. And it's like an instrument, not everyone can play or is mentally prepared to absorb certain information. It takes time to improve, but even the pro started as a newb. The truth is some people are just meant to outshine the rest. It's in their blood. I'd imagine a pro in quake has a faster response time than most other people.

Just take strafe jumping for an example. I tried to teach one of my friends how to do it for years. He never absorbed it. Even the trainer videos didn't help him. At some point he fooled himself into believing he had it down. Smh. He just didn't have a mindset to grasp the concept.

yes. the only difference between people is how long it takes. however certain players can do things no one else can that can only be explained by them having something special going on with their genetics, like toxic.

You can only fine tune what you already have.

I think the general rule for reaching your absolute best in a fps game is about 2000 hours of play.

I think is the right amount to progress from newb to your top.

Genetics play a major role in how high you will be able to reach once you fine tune your skills.

One of the things that's a prime example of this is aim. Some people can play 4000 hours and still have poor aim compared to someone who played 200 hours.

Take basketball. More or less all players spent the same amount of time training. The only difference that separates them is their genetics. Genetics allow each person to fine tune what he already has to the max. Now what matters is where your max ranks you?

You max could be average, medium, high or pro compared with the pool of players.

Even in Quake Av3k, Cypher, Rapha etc all try to max what they already have in terms of their genetic capability. You can't have someone like Av3k play the same style like Rapha, it doesn't suit his built. Instead he tries to improve on his style and gifts. He can works on achieving his most precise movement, aim feel, aggressive attacks, everything he has he just tries to fine tune it to his max capability of execution. And his max when he reaches it compared to the overall pool of players ranks him in the top 10.

That is the gist of it at least.

If you spent your life believing that the only thing that separates you and other people in skill ceiling is time I am sad to say but you are doing it wrong.
Always do what your a built for and then work to fine tune it to max, this way you will never be stuck at being average.

Everyone has different gifts. If we all focused on what we are good at instead of becoming bearable on what we are not good at, the world would be a more advanced place. It would work in a better balance because everyone would focus more or less on something that they can play leading to improvement in all areas of society.

When I was young my parents taught me I could be everything I could. This lead me to a false sense of belief. I tried soccer at school and I sucked at it, worked hard still less than average.

Later on I found skiing. Turned out I had a natural nack for it. In a short time I reached a high level. So what I did is I left soccer and focused exclusively on skiing. No time in the world would have made me a better soccer player, my max skills in that sport were just low compared to the overall pool.

I hope this puts a different perspective in this topic and helps people make better decisions.

i would have to call my friend to ask who said it but: after you played guitar for 3 years every day, for few hours you got the basics and now you can improve your skills and be the best

and thats all folks, prac hard go pro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23e1GbatgtQ#t=259

Anyone can become anything as long as they're willing to put the time in. Personally I think certain things do come easier to some and that makes practicing those things fun, so they're more likely to actually do the necessary work to outshine their peers. Where Quake is concerned, I believe the people who learn it easily are the ones at the top, because otherwise they probably wouldn't spend so much of their time on a video game.

Agreed,

Also, if you have someone to teach you fundamentals in the beginning it greatly increases your chances.

No. This is simply wrong. No matter how hard you train, how much time & money you spend, you will not reach the top if you don't have the required natural abilities.

Examples:
5' 3" tall - no beach volleyball pro (male)
6' 9" tall - no MotoGP racer.
low ape index/reach - no swimming pro
mediocre hand eye coord - no tennis, baseball, basketball or quake (?) pro
low intelligence - no chess pro
female - no pope

the list is virtually endless.

http://www.delanceyplace.com/view_archives.php?1975 - delanceyplace.com 5/31/12 - chess grandmasters have average intelligence

there is a difference between average and low...
maybe intelligence is not the most important factor for chess, but there are definitely genetic factors which are required.

Maybe I'm just a bigot sexist asshole, but I think it is no coincidence that there are only 2 women in the top 100 chess players. There is no generally accepted explanation for this (http://en.chessbase.com/post/explaining-male-...e-in-chess), but the facts are clear: If you are female, odds are you will not become a chess GM. (That does NOT signify that women are inferior somehow though).

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that in a chess tournament with 1000 players, less than 10% are women. Just genre disinterest for the game I'm supposing, not genetic factors ;(

Read the article. It tackles this issue.

I don't care that much, sorry :D

very nice article

tought i dont fully agree

My sister once gave me her opinion on the matter and I'll have to agree with her to an extent: she said she believes women are on average smarter* but the geniuses are almost always on the male side of the fence.

Some people will say history shows most geniuses that made massive breakthrough in research fields were males, to which people will answer that women didnt exactly have the same educational chances men have had, which is also true. But I tend to think the same aswell, and that is in no way sexist to agree to that imo. After all I'm not a genius myself either :D.

* But there again I'd have to give my personal two cents. I think the reason why women seem to be more succesful (at school in general, lets say) is because they work harder than men. Good lord haven't a lot of us mane sat in classrooms and see these girls try way too hard, copying their writings three times with 50 different colors and stuff and they'd get a 14/20 rating on their homework and you'd only get 10 but you didnt spend nearly as much time on the homework than they did ?

Owell been giving my opinion at 6 am a saturday morning. Guess that's because I'm too afraid people think I'm a sexist if I said that :D

Might have something to do with most boys like to have a laugh when they are young and in school and developing a bit later than women?

Why do you think guys excel at PE, physical prowess sure, but its also fun for most boys.

Women have a natural advantage in that environment which is why they might return better results, and your sisters acknowledgement that the geniuses are almost always on the male side of the fence would probably apply in school too (not at genius level) had boys in general not been hard wired to being more mischievous and boisterous than girls which IS NOT conductive to doing as well as one could in school.

If you could find an engaging way to teach everyone I'm sure everyone would do better, looking back I was so bored in some classes.
I remember being in geography on Sonic Tuesday back in 92, and I all I cared about was playing the game after school, not some shit about tectonic plates which doesn't really interest me as I knew it would not mean much in life beyond general knowledge.

But its often boring and tedious shit from old books made in the last century which is not what you want when you're young.

As for intelligence, what does it mean if you're good at math?
Unless you're the best at it someone else will know everything you know.

Its the same with all academic subjects, there is way too much emphasis put on them. They all assume everyone is going to come out of school and want a career as a teacher.

They would be better off having different schools which teach kids skills related to what they want at an earlier age.

Forcing kids to learn the same curriculum is a sure fire way to fail many, and hold back others who are going for a life in academia.

for me woman and men are potentionally equal smart
i think the key of life is to be happy, thats the first step into thinking about life
offcourse u have to follow rules, like u cant be happy if everyone surrounding u is not
in that aspect i think im an existencialist humanist
everyone different, so there are not 2 people the same, but in general terms a male to be happy would like to have at least female, and not any female
so he will do WATEVER he can to get her, and this works, it seems that looks for a man doesnt matter as much as power does matter, a good way to get power is to be smart, woman are really turned on on a smart guy
for a woman is different, cause looks matter so much more, and u cant change ur looks, at least not in the actual time
so i think man and woman are equally smart, but for the time being, theres no reason for womans to develop this "being smart" thing just yet
but i think maybe in the future, its gonna be a woman the one to discover how to change in a super cool genetic way their bodys

i would like to add that maybe im COMPLETLY WRONG in this idea and i would love to hear where is wrong

I have yet to be shown studies that prove the brain works similarly to the body in regard to hard limits, or whether the limits of the brain are more flexible than that.

As for a virtually endless lists of examples that support my point of view, compare any two people at anything, 9 times out of 10, the one who comes out on top spent more time on it.

Besides, what is more defeatist? Saying you can't be something because you're just not built that way or saying that you're not willing to put the time in to learn and overcome your own limitations?

Accidentally plussed, even though i completely disagree :/

In this specific regard, the process of aiming in video games is very similar to aiming a real gun (sport shooting), handling or throwing a ball, throwing darts, driving a car ...
Essentially it is a question of coordination between your senses (input) and your actions (output). If you don't have the talent, you will not become a successful pro (unless there is not a lot of competition).

Your 9 out of 10 example is not relevant, because it doesn't support the statement "anyone can become anything if they try hard enough" at all. You just can't compare "any two people" if you want to argue professional level.

Regarding Quake pros:
Fatality is a great example to demonstrate how far dedication, training and professionalism can take you. Yet he lost to players, because they were simply more talented than him (e.g. tox). Keep in mind that fatality was rather talented himself.

There were probably hundreds of people who spend the same amount of time on quake and who never even came close to fatality, let alone close to tox in Q4.

We are discussing the truth of things here, not whether they are defeatist or not....

Aiming is a skill. Some people have a knack for aiming. Others do not. Those who do not have a knack have to improve to approach the same level as those with a knack.

Improving isn't an exact science, and it takes practice to improve.

Unless you have a knack at improving you'll have an extraordinarily tough time actually improving. Take me for example. I have probably 2500 duels, and I'm 1400-1600 elo noob. I spend most of my duels not actually focusing on improving an aspect of my game. Other times I have no idea what I'm even trying to do. Because of this, I hardly improve at all.

If I set my practicing straight so that I'm always improving each time I play I might suddenly become better.

Yes/No

Or pay me for lessons!

its a balance, some will be naturally good aimers, some with practice will get better, some with natural good aim will get EVEN BETTER, some not, in the end i think u can deduce someone who seems naturally skilled could get a lot better with practice, also someone who is like STUPID will never get it fast enough to catch the talented ones, but only because its a competition and not everyone can be the best

We are discussing the truth of things here, not whether they are defeatist or not....

Show me a definitive study on nature/nurture in regard to advanced skillsets and I will agree. Until there is a scientific consensus on the subject (which I doubt will ever be reached as you can't really study human beings like you would a plant or something) it's a matter of opinion, therefore a matter of choice.

You talked about chess. Are you familiar with the Polgar sisters?

female no pope hahaha got me there.

Btw I've got to agree, I've never been an athlete huh, but back as a teenager, I was the better shot taker in my team in basketball, I would also be a very good tennis player - beating my dad at only 11 years old. Never played football either but I had a few occasional tries where I'd be very comfortable on taking shots, bending them to my liking. List goes on with any game that uses a racket (ping pong, badminton...)

I guess that's why I settled with quake and computer games lel.

Malcolm Gladwell admits to being wrong, and prefers just to be interesting and provoking.

Some unrealstic people here who don't want to face the fact that they can't reach top simply because they don't have it in the particular field.

You could take X, train him 24/7 all day every day he will still suck. You have players with 4000 hours in Quake who are not good.

It is like in power lifting. If you take someone who doesn't have the genetics for it, they just can't compete. Train them as long as you like, give them the best food, it will be to no avail.
They just aren't build for it.

I think best example of what a body can and can't achieve is Mixed Martial Arts. You see each fighter specializes his style based on what they are built for. For instance Anderson Silva, best striker, worked hard and improved his striking to the point where he would simply beat all his foes in that department. That one fact cause him to excel. His wreslting despite training for years is still very questionable.

Matt Hughes. Multiple time wrestling champion, trained boxing for 10 years and still can't punch better than amateurs who have 3 month under their belt. He worked on his boxing for a long time and it just never got better, and it cost him many fights.

Training hard will only help you reach the maximum capability of your genetics. But if your max capability of your genetics is not high for the field you are trying to be good at, you will simply never reach top.

"Now, that's a hard motherfucking fact of life. But it's a fact of life your ass is gonna have to get realistic about"

genetics doesn't play nearly as large of a role in video games as it does in physical sports. people who do something a lot and still suck simply weren't using their time effectively.

dont insult known people (now player x) or swear (you know what that is) when posted anonymous. else deletion.

time fraggers

dunno whether or not you can reach the same level as cypher, but you could probably stay competitive with the best off practice alone

I don't think quake has a big enough demographic to start talking on a genetic level yet, neither do I think any game which changes over the years is a suitable benchmark for such a comparison, especially one which is not popular across the world, or one which has no funding for people to do it full time.

Ultimately genes will separate something or someone, but only if the other factors are pushed to the max and the conditions are right.

Look at how exciting the quake scene was in the late 90's or 2000?

You telling me a youngster of today has the same motivation/opportunity to get good as someone who was his age back then?

No way, it was MUCH easier then to get obsessed with a game like quake,and therefore get good at it.

Granted some people are hardwired to get good at things quicker and better than others, but if you're talking at a genetic level, then you have to be talking at the elite level, the fact remains that there are OTHER variables which affect a player reaching those heights in any videogame, especially quake.

I know what its like to play someone at a moment in time who is much better than me at a videogame, but I also know what its like to overcome those people, I done it to others and other have done it to me, the only thing that changed was my commitment on my part vs theirs.

All top players share the mindset of they can be the best, if you have that mindset, you can probably engineer the rest if you have someone to guide you and other things fall into place.

all this genetic arguments are underrating other aspects fucking hardcore imo. i think amount and "efficiency" of pracctice is the key, but those are dependent on other factors. lastly the pracctice results will be videly dependent on how u approach the gameplay - finding a good understanding of the game early should be descisive. (and how u re doing with that may be dependent on ur prior gaming experiences, social influences (imagine f.e. finding out about arena shooters by watching a veteran playing, pointing out it kinda is about avoiding fights until u have a stack advantage etc.) and sometimes general aspects like age.


would also claim that ur pracctice ambitions and (for the topic more important) success are probably impacted by ur social surrounding. support and attention can strengthen confidence and enable ppl to do better. (thinking bout some own experiences - sometimes i had a good friend, whom i shared a flat with, watching over my shouder, and that somehow made me pull out my a-game or sth. at least that's what i thought).
also: if the social surrounding values the action badly that could restrain how much pracctice effort a person is willing to put into sth (not just cause of sanctions from others but also self stigmatization).
ok, i guess the sociologist in me took over :p however, i do think there are talent differences. but earlier or later i guess pretty much anyone can reach a very high level with the right kind of pracctice (from the start!? i mean once one has developed quite a careless gamestyle it's hard to change) (and mindset).

I bought a pro subscription and now it says I'm a pro player.

That's a scam.

no

One word: epigenetics

Anyone can become a pro, but still cypher and rapha are going to keep winning everything. Pro /= Successful Pro.

Come to think about it, I think in QL (2008-2014) first and second places of all major duel lans were people that were considered "pros" (big names) in Quake 3.

How long it takes to get there + mind set.
Mind set is probably the most important thing.

can't really practice reaction times or hand-eye coordination or aiming without hitting your own personal limits

But its going to be close to someone else no matter what, those factors would only make a difference in a lab environment where the perfect game is played, not many people play a perfect game, so even if you did not hit quite as high stats, you could make that up through positioning which is impossible to measure.

If what you said was true, all you would need was good aim, yes it helps and its so annoying playing a railwhore or someone who wins shaft battles even when you go into them with more health armour, but even these players get found out at the top.

Maybe at the level most people get to it does make a diff.

But if we're talking at the top then not really.

This

you're not comparing equal things though

if you have to make up for bad reaction times with superior positioning, then all you're observing is that positioning is one of the skills in the game

if all other skills are equal, the players with better reflexes / reactions / aim will do better than the players who are worse in those areas. a lot of those type of skills are hard-wired (genetics or something)

"if you have to make up for bad reaction times with superior positioning, then all you're observing is that positioning is one of the skills in the game"

And?

my point is, there are many skills that go into being successful at these games.

When you mentioned aim and reaction speed it implied you thought was some kind of utopia skill, which was just really rudimentary, like saying, a hot looking girl will be your perfect woman, or the person who can punch hardest will be the heavyweight boxing champ of the world.

You can be a successful actor if you're ugly and skilled.
You can be a successful actor if you're handsome and unskilled.
And that can also work the other way around.

There's no gene for..

Luck
Timing
Desire.
Preparation.
Personality.

All of those things and more are down to things beyond hard wired advantages.

If we were talking about 100m sprinters, I would agree with you.
But even then, other traits are required, unless you're a freak like Usain Bolt.

Or quake was a 1 weapon game on a basic map.

Anyone can be a pro, but can anyone be the best?

I say no. I think genetics plays a big part in who can be the best. For example, in basketball the best players are always guys with super long arms (Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Jerry West, D-Wade, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Lebron, Durant, etc)

Fast reaction time should probably be one of the necessary Quake genes, but I wonder what else guys like rapha, cypher, and evil have.

I could have been pro, had I been given enough time to practice.
But I fear I'm not going to make it to the 2300's.

Edit: assuming that QL still exists in the 2300's

Protip : It won't.

if u think of quake as a duel competitive plataform
u can judge from the actual reality that only 3 people are in the BEST OF THE WORLD spot now (rapha, cypher, evil)
i think in competitive areas, there are 2 factors, skill and luck
ok im to tired to write all this stuff im thinking about
but in my opinion, if anyone could be a pro, everyone would be
if u really want it, u have to give it a shot, trust the force to guide u
and let the force be with u

COOLLER$$$$$$

there was a research looking into players in a orchestra, the first instrument in its own class, that is the best player that does the solos and everything, has invested more time than #2,that has a less important role and invested more time than #3 with an even smaller role and so on..


another similar story was with a chess player who set out to make his children chess masters. His son wasnt to much into it, didnt invest a lot of time and didnt become good, while the two daughters liked the game and invested the necessary hours into it and became one of the best in the world.

Are you talking about László Polgár and his daughters?

Practice != practice.

This article is probably wrong regarding talent, but it points out an important difference in practice.
http://expertenough.com/1423/deliberate-practice

If a thing is comprised of 1 skill, say, shooting a gun, or enudrance running, then you can never be a top competitor without the specific genes.

If a thing is complex, like any popular sport or Quake, then it depends on how much you are deficient on the core skills. You may overcome your weaknesses by creating new strengths, but you will never become what you're meant to be - for example, you won't become toxjq if you're not wired for it. If you're diligent enough, you may be something enough to be a top player, or you may not. Depends on how much harder you practice than the talented people, and what you can make of your strengths.

What is needed to achieve new levels is a basic algorithm of identifying what needs to be worked on, and applying deliberate practice. However, that kind of simple, yet bold thinking is rare, and for that reason only people with a passion for it - who can put in hours without being bored - and an obvious talent usually prevail. That's because people, when analized through their actions long-term, are quite irrational.

This is based on reading things regarding talent, intelligence and deliberate practice, as well as seeing how reality maps to the theory. I'm no expert, but it's more than many people posting here will have read.

Toxic had an older brother whose won quakecon, I'm guessing that helped.

though I agree toxic is kinda broken.

The real question is, can anyone be a Bro?