Ironically, I also found it interesting that Cooler, who I consider to be the godfather of modern Quake, flopped at WCG 2001 Russia. He had just turned 15 and got beat badly by a bunch of Russian unknowns. Then he would come back a year later and demonstrate what a power house he was. He would go on to be a very dominate quake player for years and years.

He sounds interesting, tell us more about this "cooller" fellow

unknowns? lol okay.

you were among them?

Yes, Cooller got beat by unknowns at WCG 2001 Russia.

They weren't unknowns.

these "unknowns" included and were not limited to

c58.Polosatiy
c4.LeXeR
PELE[PK]
b100.death
and whole bunch of his b100 buddies. Cooller lost to one of them.

Any of the 4 mentioned above had skills to be world champion and one of them in fact did.

So many "unknowns". : D

quite famous players back then ...
would be good to know what these "unknowns" are doing today ...
if the devotion of so much time and energy into quake was hinderance for their real life success or not

Dracula was not well known (Even today, I doubt many know who he is, unless they are hardcore into quake history). Maloy was not well known in 2001, either.

as well as Cooller wasn't known at that time :b

lexer at qcon and death at CPL ... so , 2
polosatiy was #2 at cpl
and pele was quite a legend

you can find the full brackets here https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCG_RU_Prelimin...e_III_Duel (even if it's on Russian, brackets don't need any translation)
Search for "cooller":
- in the winners' bracket he lost to Maloy (i'm 90% sure it is unkind)
- in the loosers' bracket he lost to b100.dracula, which lost to b100.death lately with close score 8-9.

p.s. also you can find somebody with "fortune" nickname, i guess it can be 421 from 102, since he started to play Quake3 from like really early years.

p.s.s. if you want to compare Russians' skill at that moment, take as note that LeXeR came 2nd at WCG 2001 where he lost to Zero4.

maloy was unkind.

you sure? lamz|question also went by that name.

pretty sure I had an unkind cfg with stupidly high settings like 2 sens / 2 accel and he had a bind in there for /name maloy but hey whatever?

cooller

You won't find, almost all tournaments don't have players below 16 for legal/financial/parental reasons.

15yo Suma1l kid from Pakistan won DAC dota2 tournament a month ago (1.3 million $ for 1st place), and overall dota 2 is full of young talents, but it's a team discipline.

aye, the thing to understand about dota is that
1) it's a much, much easier game than quake
2) as a teamgame, the responsibilities are divided, and the hardest role of captain - the drafter and the in game leader, is held by the more experienced players

So the young player merely needs to have mechanical talent at a mechanically easy game and be okayish with communication. It'd be more comparable if he was the captain maybe, but honestly, I still think it's much easier than Quake.

what son1dow said is true
suma1l is just mechanics
ppd and aui_2000 are top supports adn that makes his life a lot easier

You cant say dota is easier than quake, they are both hard games in different aspects.

Yes I can, same way bowling is easier than football, even though it is also hard in different aspects.

Maybe dota is easier than quake at a casual level, but still is really difficult to compare those in a pro level since to judge that it's required to be pro at both and both are different genres altogether.

Simplifying the matter based on a glance by the inexperienced eye is absurd. It's like some armchair warrior saying that basketball is harder than soccer, or than tennis, or that any real life sport is harder than anything that can be done using a PC because in the latter you only use your hands and users aren't precisely athletes.

Also simplifications can be done the other way around, this time in favor of dota. For example it isn't that much of an achievement to be the best in a game with merely hundreds of players (the amount of QL duelers) in which the money involved is pocket change so not a single person takes this game seriously, that when compared to the millions of dota players playing for millions of dollars and the competition is actual professional asian teams. Also execution wise most likely dota surpasses quake, as there's more inputs involved, with more frequent and more precise clicking, pressing more keys than wasd and the spacebar and so on, plus you can say in pro dota there´s as much if not more thinking than in quake, because you have to outsmart the opponent in front of you (no dota isn't just clicking and the opponent simply dies), that plus four others that can use over 30 competitive characters and items instead of just one (comp. dota itself is thousands of times more diverse than quake is).

Only a total noob can say dota is just mechanics and no "real life" person will tell you that winning $9,000 is more of an achievement than winning over $200,000. Moreover, denigrating someone because he is into a team based competition instead of something one on one is just stupid really, especially when in esports the top5, top10 more competitive games are all team based stuff, just like in real life esports .

I can see that dota, professional or not, is a very dumbed down game from a simple comparison with actual RTS games. Anyone who ever played starcraft would never argue that dota is mechanically hard. It just is easy.

Usually here dota fans will argue that dota is a team game, but there are hard teamgames like Quake. So is teamplay in dota somehow magically million times harder than in Quake to compensate? Just no. In fact, the more mechanically easy the game is, the easier teamplay is, because you basically don't have to consider the skill factor in each play.

The money and fame comparison does work, but there are other factors here, like prestige in the scene and longevity. Comparing money and playerbases would work if Quake was a three year old game with as much money as it has in the current climate.

Edit:

Moreover, denigrating someone because he is into a team based competition instead of something one on one is just stupid really.

I'm definitely not doing that. I'm merely comparing skill, inserting any insult into this isn't my doing. In fact, I'm playing much more dota than Quake these past few years. This isn't an argument about fun or the people playing these games.

One thing I'd like to note though, there are hard team games. So don't make this teamgame vs duel game like many do in these arguments, it's about an easy game vs hard game.

Above all, you really are comparing apples and oranges. Dota2 and QL are completely different games altogether. There's absolutely no way to do so.

In any case I'm bored.

QL is a very, very much dumbed down game and it isn't hard at all. I don't know how people can deny that really. The progression was:
- QW was ruthless. That is the only FPS that can be compared to starcraft.
- Then in Q2 the game became more approachable, slower and rewards skill less than before.
- The same happened once again in Q3. There's design documents on the matter, including that the idea was to make noobs be able to kill really good players no matter the skill difference. This is the so called hardcore game.
- Same happened once again in Q4.
- And in 2015 QL is way simpler than Q3 and than those before it. Anyone that knows what he is talking about will tell you that same thing, to the point QL hardly is quake anymore (quake1) and anyone can reach 1% level just on aim alone.

You know why cypher remains to be the champion? Because in about 10 years that not a single new competitor has tried his luck at becoming "pro", so he has no challengers. That happens because there's no money, prestige or anything like that in quake, so in QL (a 2008-2015 game) there's next to no competition.
On the other hand, in dota2 there's thousands of people that play more seriously than cypher does, so the level is always increasing and it's more of an achievement to be the best among 10,000,000 than among 100. Oh and dota as we know it started in 2005, so all the emotional factors that apply to quake apply to dota too.

Finally, how can you talk about pro level in dota, if you aren't a pro or at least a really good player? I mean you can't talk about things you don't know about, like a painter talking about medicine, so are you and can prove so? The same can be said about Quake, because it so happens that the 1400 elo noobs are those that say quake is chess and that is because they don't have a clue about the game and since they suck at it they think it's hard, when in actuality it's not.
Sincerely I don't think I can talk that much about mobas (despite at my "peak" being top150 in the world in lol LoL, lol), nor that much about top 0.1% level quake (despite that I crushed skulp and he crushed fatality, lol), so I'm not qualified to compare them.

Yes, the games are very different and require very different skills. Still, we can look at how Quake compares to other shooters, and it's definitely extremely hard. You can look how mobas compare to RTS games, and they're definitely mechanically easy.

You don't need to be pro to see this, it is quite evident. Again, anybody who played sc will know this.


I'm not saying it's easier to be a good dota player. When Quake/sc players spend their time raising their specific skill levels by, say, a few percent per year, a dota player will work on getting that 0.1% closer to perfection, as even a strong pubber is usually 90% in most skills. He will also work on understanding and abusing a metagame that just keeps on shifting.

Same way a pro bowler would find enough ways to spend his time, his life isn't ultimately easier than a football player's life. It's just that the game is easier. More skills farther from being capped, that's the only difference I'm talking about.

You clearly did not play dota/hon much.
So your basing all this on nothing.

The thing boils down to this:
In quake you play against your opponent, who has the same options as you do.
In dota you play against the opponents character more so than you do vs the opponent.

In dota each character has different skills & stats... a large part of the game is just to know those skills & stats. The individual skill is much less important than just having knowledge of those things.

In quake you have to "make your own skills". Knowing your skills and your opponent skills, is also important in quake. However the skills originate not from the character you pick but from the practice you have done.

dota is much more about simply knowing how skills work. (learning an encyclopedia of game stats)
quake is much more about becoming skilled. (you don't have to know many stats)

(of course knowing how much damage a rail does is important, and it is important in dota that you don't miss-click all the time. But from one game to another there is a huge shift in which you need to be good at ;p)

Also dotas are so simple and slow you can't even proper fuck up the netcode.

It's always possible to fuck up netcode.
But in most games it doesn't matter as much as in quake.

Unless you haven't played dota on a decent lvl you shouldn't talk about stuff you clearly have no clue about. Same goes for son1dow.

so many negations in that line....

Anyway I have clues... I don't need to be "pro in a game" to see what it is about.
I'm not saying that the game is shit or that it doesn't take skill... I'm saying that the skill in dota games is predominantly based on what you know about the game.
skill in quake is predominantly based on what you know about your opponent and hand eye coordination in relation to the game ('skill').

If you think any different then you have never played any game at high level.

by the looks of it, you seem to be severely overestimating the knowledge factor in dota

Because he doesn't play it, or hasn't faced a high level player in a moba.

Huh? Look at any team that is dominating, and tell me why. Skilled teams fall of and come back up again, but the biggest common thing dominating teams have is their superior understanding of the metagame, both in drafting and in the game.

Weird is right and he didn't even have to play the game to know it.

[img1]

okey :)

I'm not saying that the game is shit or that it doesn't take skill... I'm saying that the skill in dota games is predominantly based on what you know about the game.

xD

I don't even know if I should give the never-played coach example.

Like, do I need to do both to understand that high school physics is easier than doctorate level mathematics? Or that, again, bowling is easier than football? I think I can estimate these things just fine with my knowledge of these things.

Besides, It's not like I can't understand the vast majority of decisions pros make in these games. Actually less so in Quake. But I made up my mind about how this works a long time ago, before I sank more than a thousand of hours into dota. So this high level knowledge? It's irrelevant if you understand what you can do in a game.

PS. So you actually think weird is wrong? Or did you literally ignore that he was right despite having no experience in the game?

He's wrong.

dota is much more about simply knowing how skills work. (learning an encyclopedia of game stats)

If you think this is true then you must be above 6k with your thousands of hours.

I think he may have just typed it out wrong, as later on (you quote what he said later) he says it's about knowledge.

I won't defend him if he actually thinks it's about knowing the skills literally, but he seems to be saying it's about knowledge (in an awkward way), and if so, he's right. http://esreality.com/post/2715914/#pid2715896

Never played DOTA but in LoL where is the execution part?
You decide to do something based on what you know about the game and then it's just happening.
QWERQWERQWEQWRQWRQEQWRQWRQWEQRQWE
and guy with higher stats stays alive.
If you try to bait someone on being low hp it's again about knowledge.
There is X hp someone has and Y damage you can deal.

Well your wrong again, and you cant conclude anything like that when you dont play the game.

As an example cypher has over 3000 hours of dota2 playtime and is nowhere near what looks like toplevel play.
He has had time to learn the "encyclopedia of gamestats" five times over with that playtime.

The games are just to different, and they are hard in their own aspect, ill go as far and say that dota requires more of a person, than in quake, at the very toplevel just like starcraft.
So play some ranked dota around the median mmr that is ¨3700 and try to imagine how you could get to 6.5 to 7k rating where the 0.1% recides.

You cant say dota is easier than quake, they are both hard games in different aspects.

The games are just to different, and they are hard in their own aspect,

Then

ill go as far and say that dota requires more of a person, than in quake, at the very toplevel just like starcraft.

You seem to be confused with your own point.

I won't even go into misreprestenting weird's point (he's talking about gameknowledge, and he's right, even without playing the game!), or confusing a specific specific players' progress as in any way relevant.

Right ye maybe he could have learned it 5 times over....
But 3000 / 6 = 500 hours to learn it 1ce.

In quake you can know all gamestats in 5 minutes.
There is a 6.000 times difference in that.

In your cypher case (I don't know if that is factually correct but let's assume it is)
I think we can agree that cypher has great execution (mouse control + pressing buttons on time + staying calm under pressure etc.).
However he doesn't own all other people in it.
conclusion: he doesn't know when to press which button. (we are sure that he is able to do so(!))

So a huge part of the game is knowing which button to press at which time. In order to know that... you'll have to know the stats of each player.
In dota this origin is based upon the game mechanics, in quake it's based upon individual skill and views of the opponent.

Now in dota you can also have different views on how to play the game, but it leads you to selecting other characters.

I can't really explain this much better...
The execution is so easy that you reach a ceiling at which you cannot further improve... You can't "be better at movement / aim / timing" than your opponent because the game dictates all of those things in dota.

I don't say that "because there is this ceiling that the game is easy / shit" I just point out the difference between the games.

Quake is about playing your opponent. Dota is (much more) about playing against the stats of your opponent.

Yea but without playing it you can only speculate, and you are way off :/

I think that you are identifying yourself too much with characters from the game. You identify the skills/abilities of the character you are playing as your 'own skill'. This makes an objective analyses impossible.
By far most people I know do this. Which is partially why they suck at gaming :D

Btw, games are more fun if you identify yourself with the characters... So if you enjoy playing now then don't try to see it from my point of view.
If you want to win money through dota you should though... But it won't be as enjoyable.

hey weird street fighter is only character knowledge and frame data

In street fighter the main problem people overcome is pressing the right button at the right time.
Each character has "some right action" but you need to place that at exactly the right moment.

(btw this doesn't hold for earlier fighting games where the outcome was pretty much decided during fighter-selection)

In dota the main problem people overcome is pressing the right button at the right time.
Each character has "some right action" but you need to place that at exactly the right moment.

(btw im laughing at you because i dont see any point in explaining the hundreds different utilities of the abilities in dota!!)

hey if I attribute any meaning I want to what you write I can troll you just as well.

That you don't read what I write is not my problem...

pls do that, that could actually make this fucking moronic discussion worthwhile

you know that you don't have to attribute to discussions with random bullshit?

Obviously you don't care how irrelevant your comments are, you just care that you make them.
You don't even care about this discussion (as it is fucking moronic).

So why are you posting here?
Is your main objective in life to make me waste 20 secs to type a post?

what random bullshit is that?

take your pick :D
- hey weird street fighter is only character knowledge and frame data (bullshit conclusion)
- In dota the main problem people overcome is pressing the right button at the right time. (I didn't say that)
- btw im laughing at you because i dont see any point in explaining the hundreds different utilities of the abilities in dota!! (no purpose other than to, I guess, troll/insult)
- pls do that, that could actually make this fucking moronic discussion worthwhile (speaks for itself)
- what random bullshit is that? (have you said any sane word in this discussion?)

hey weird street fighter is only character knowledge and frame data = how do u not see the sarcasm

In dota the main problem people overcome is pressing the right button at the right time. = 100% true. like, if you had any practical experience against semi-good opponents, you would know that.

btw im laughing at you because i dont see any point in explaining the hundreds different utilities of the abilities in dota!! = hardly insulting, merely stating whats going on

pls do that, that could actually make this fucking moronic discussion worthwhile = you offered, i gladly accepted

what random bullshit is that? = what random bullshit is that?

sarcasm doesn't work online ;(
Besides on esr I just assume everyone disagrees with me unless they specifically agree ;)

lmao k

The opponent plays too (1) and with your understanding then quake is solely about clicking when a model is lined up with the crosshair, like a shooting gallery (2).

dunno if you noticed but I'm just highlighting the differences between the games.

Compared to quake:
SF is about timing your actions. (reflexes I guess... I never played, I just know it's about timing the actions :D)
Dota is about picking your actions. (knowledge about the game)

That you think that QL is a "simple game" is because you think that you have to need knowledge for a game to be complicated.
But chess is one of the most complex games around, while you hardly need any knowledge (when compared to something like dota).
You can derive everything from a very simple rule set and become a grand master. (people do study how other people solved things, but at the base lies a very simplistic rule set)
Quake is also very simplistic in rule set, but it's not a "simple game".
Dota is ridiculously strange with rule set, also not a "simple game".

dota is hugely knowledge based, as you need to know all 110 heroes. Then you need to know their interactions. Then each has certain builds as you level them up, and items. dota requires relatively little mechanical skill. Warcraft 3 = you control 3 heroes, plus all "creeps", plus macro!!
And broodwar is regarded as harder than warcraft 3.

If you are talking in raw mechanical skill quake > dota. There is no question. the elements of raw skill in dota are skill shots and duking. For a comparison every shot in quake is a skill shot and every move you make when you are in view is made with dodge in mind and it's all in 3 dimensions. Are you seriously saying dota combat is harder than quake combat?

Don't talk to me about invoker or meepo. Those are the hardest heroes and even then it may be completely suboptimal given the current meta to play with those heroes. It would be like me saying quake is so difficult if you play plasma only.

the only way dota can be considered harder than quake is in the competition. ie there is larger amount of players and money involved. Even then, i'll give you an example. There are more people and there is more money in poker than in chess. Does that mean it is harder to become a top poker player?

well said

"The individual skill is much less important than just having knowledge of those things."
that is only true for low level pubs

"In dota you play against the opponents character more so than you do vs the opponent."
again this is true only for a low level games

"In quake you have to "make your own skills". Knowing your skills and your opponent skills, is also important in quake. However the skills originate not from the character you pick but from the practice you have done."
that is not true, every hero can be played in a very different ways, which depends on the player a lot.

"dota is much more about simply knowing how skills work. (learning an encyclopedia of game stats)"
another assumption, which is true only for noob level

edit: having read your other posts I can now see, that you either did not play dota at all or you are yet at the beginning of the learning curve, as all your assumptions are common for such types of ppl

And what's beyond that nub level?
5 man coordination?
Mindgames? Baiting?

this and many more

So if I were to sum up your argumentation:
then you are saying "I'm right, if you think I'm wrong then you suck".

Great solid argumentation.

Well here's my answer to it:
I'm right, if you think I'm wrong then you're stupid.

you have way too potat potent imagination sir

Merely what, 2k hours. Do I need four, or do you need to stop bullshitting?

2k :)
and you did not have competitive experience I assume?

And what knowledge do I miss, tell me

there is no point, it is like explaining what competitive weightlifting/powerlifting is to the guy who casually does a bench press couple times a week or even worse - is a crossfit fan :)

Yeah, I suppose communication is impossible. Skills you use are not describeable, too.

You don't even want to prove your point, you just like resting on supposed, unproven authority eh.

sure I am :)

And it doesn't even matter that I watched tonnes of pro play? :) It's something you cannot communicate until I experience it myself? :)

lets put it other way around, did you ever play any PC game on a high level or maybe participated in sports with more or less serious effort?

No. I've watched tons and discussed it a lot, so I don't feel like there's too much I couldn't understand.

foreseen this answer, that is precisely the reason why I used exaggerated real sports analogy http://esreality.com/post/2717243/#pid2717172. It's like watching weightlifting for decade and belieiving you know what this sport is about, without ever lifting anything more than 120kg in gym. Or even closer example to esports - watching F1 for decade and being absolutely sure its no more than good car which wins.

So watching sports and not competing is always watching sports and having stupid presumptions about what it's about? You're ridiculous. How many people do you know that watch F1 for a decade and think it's always the good car that wins, and why do you think all people are like that?

:) really, why you always try to use analogies as if they were my actual points? Those are simplified exaggerated examples to show you my point, which is that you can not truly understand the sport/game at high level if you never played it even at amateur competitions. Not to mention that as far as I understood the lack of the answer to the second part of my question in #134 post you do not have competitive experience with serious effort in any activity.

It's the same if I convert it into your actual point, too. It'd be like what, dota player watching dota for 10 years and thinking it's 100% drafting and 0% play? It's still ridiculous.

you seem to not understand what words exaggerated, simplified, analogy and example mean, also it seems like you do not want to even try to understand what I have written. Why do you even bother to continue this discussion if you do not care anyway?
out of curiosity what do you do for living?

The ridiculous part is that you're sure everyone who watches a lot of something has to be stupid and have bad assumptions. Aren't there people who watch a lot and understand it well?

you must be retarted as I clearly stated several times, that this is not my point, and I do not think so, yet you keep circling around it. And btw you ignored half of my post again. So I assume my guess was right.

Usually, you want to keep an analogy clean of any extra assumptions. If you make analogies that says a person robbed a bank and killed 5 people and also littered, and look at his damage to the society, it won't be a good analogy for the purpose of showing the damage of littering.

And if you make this kind of unclean analogy and fail to clarify what you meant literally without an analogy, directly, for several posts in a row, well then I don't know what to think.

) you are pathetic

You just don't know how to make a proper analogy. Nor you care about furthering this discussion apparently, as you fail to explain it if I understand it so poorly.

all you do is juggling random points trying to quibble and evade the core of our discussion because you simply do not have valid arguments, so why would I care for such discussion?

haha, what? Ever since you replied to me you called bullshit on my point and gave zero arguments other than "lol no comp. experience you know shit". After I asked what I missed, you started the stupid analogy and didn't bother saying anything else.

but this is very valid point, which you still could not disprove, since you do not have such experience at all in any activity. And my analogies are still valid as well, maybe f1 is a bit off, but the lifting one is pretty much self explaining.

Common sense alone tells one that you can understand a high level activity simply by analyzing. Especially considering that there are pro football coaches that didn't play the game.

As far as your analogy, the f1 was a huge straw man, and the lifting one simply says "somebody trying to understand something without being professional", it doesn't conclude anything.

To understand a high level activity is not the same as understand the activity at a high level in my opinion. We might be talking about different things in the end :)

pro football coaches that didn't play the game

that might actually be an advantage, since this way coach does not empathise too much to his players, hence demands more which leads to greater outcome. Being a coach is not the same as watching, as being a coach he puts a lot of effort and greatly influences the game hence learns the response, therefore he actually has the experience beyond casual in the game.

the f1 was a huge straw man

with f1 it was off and very imprecise I admit again, lets just forget it if it bothers you that much :)

somebody trying to understand something without being professional

Lets clarify again, my point is that in order to truly understand the game/sports at high level one have to have at least beyond casual experience (not necessarily being a professional) in this particular activity or in any other sports/game. So its not "something" and its not "understand in general" that we are talking about.
And lifting analogy was brought because it is the sport in which it is next to impossible to even understand it in general with only watching and casual gym experience. Therefore it illustrates my point pretty well, although dota is not that much hard to understand in general, but at a high level it is definitely not easier than quake for example.

Being a coach is not the same as watching, as being a coach he puts a lot of effort and greatly influences the game hence learns the response, therefore he actually has the experience beyond casual in the game.

Sort of, but you can simulate some of that with betting, and talking about which team will win with people before the game / after the draft, then seeing how it goes. These things you can do without being not nearly as good as pros.

that is finally a good point. +

quake is 3d dimensional game with direct interaction in movement ..
dota is a top-down fake 3d game with indirect interaction, you dont have to think in 3d dimensional space, dont need the reflexes, dont need the precision in mouse aiming and not the feeling for moving around the map ... in dota on the hand you have a lot of memory patterns, what to do in which situation, you have build up some sort of sophisticated rule engine in your head ... but reflexes, 3dimensional orientation, hand eye coordination dont count that much ...

LoL > CS > DotA > Quake bruh

You're talking about pro level quake (with little understanding about the quake series i see) and your not pro.

According to you, your own argument is invalid.

GJ

/aZ1d

compare chess with poker ...
there is more money in poker,
but noone will argue that chess is hands down the more difficult game that expands your mind in certain levels such as calculation, imagination and memory while poker is just some memory knowledge of probabilities and lot of bluffing ... poker is much reduced, just as dota is much reduced to quake, there is no argument there are fulltime professionals training the game all day and the skill level is very high ... but poker is like being the fastest to to turn screws in somewhere while chess is the discipline of engineering a car for certain environment and who has the fastest car for that environment ... no argument there are full pros out there who can turn screws faster than others, but I am more interested in car engineering ... face the truth

Mobas are for noobs, that's why they're popular. If I was going to play a top down game it would be SC brood war since the skill ceiling is infinite. It's also 1v1 based, 5v5 shit lowers the skill ceiling big time.

You're still comparing chalk to cheese. You clearly don't know the difference and it's not that dota is easier, it's different. There is more of a dynamic skill set that needs attention.

You're still comparing chalk to cheese.

Sure I am. Cheese is tastier, more nutritious and more yellow. Chalk is better for writing things down or for doodles. If I bothered to research this a bit, I could also tell you which one is harder to make.

I would like to point out that yellow chalk is commonly available and that numerous kinds of cheese have white color.

I was just doing a quick comparison. I could make it detailed, but why does it matter. We obviously can compare these things.

Anf of what use is this comparison? Exactly, none. Which is the point behind that saying.

This one isn't very useful because we already know it. The dota/quake one is useful for how competitive (not casual!) games should be made, for example.

I agree. i don't think quake and dota is like chalk and cheese either. I.e they are comparable. Dont know anything about doto tho.

lol really?

DOTA is not a first person shooter, Quake is.

How can you now compare that? Like I said, two different games that attain way different skill sets.
Pretty sure the majority of ESR don't know how to logic yo.

Both belong to the category of computer games. Both games serve the same utility. Both games are competitive. How do you know they attain way different skillsets if you did not compare their skillsets? Sorry bro logic isn't your thing it seems

The same as comparing american football, to normal football or even aussie rules football and rugby.
They are still classed from the same category called "Sport" Both sports serve the same utility ie a ball.
Please try troll elsewhere on subjects you might have an idea about.

Wait are you implying that comparing american football to soccer is like comparing chalk to cheese?

You're German, I don't think you are able to grasp these easy English sentences. You should go back and read again. I won't hold it against you, you tried. <3

That's interesting. You did not provide an answer and instead try to get out of the discussion by playing the non-native-speaker-card. *yawn*

do you do this because you realise you are wrong or is the topic too complex for you?

You dont have to answer. Since you are not interested in an honest discussion i won't waste my time with you further.

There were several, you couldn't comprehend it. I'm done.

And you're saying we can't compare these sports? I'm not saying I'll be able to come to a conclusion on which is the easiest in this case (sports are more complex than today's games - and the reason I compare games at all is some of the games are pretty easy, meanwhile all of these sports are obviously extremely hard).

But I will be able to tell you the kind of physiques that sportsmen should have for these sports. Some will require more endurance, some more speed, some more accuracy and skill.

I might be missing something here (this is a secondary topic, so don't hold my ignorance against me please), but american football seems to be a game where skill with the ball is irrelevant for most of the players - only what, the catchers and the QB even touch it usually? So that's a meaningful thing to note.

But again, list off the skills in any of these games vs the skills in bowling, and you will see that they're harder generally. Obviously, bowling might require extreme talent in 1-3 skills, but how can you say it compares to football? Handling the ball alone is as hard as bowling itself, especially considering the amount of different kicks alone you can do.

And football and bowling are more different than QL and Dota are. Obviously, you do similar mouse movements in Quake and Dota. You remember timings (RL reload, skill timings, rosh timing) which are fixed in a digital world. You do skillshots using predictions of your oponents, only one is 3d and one is 2d.

Some skills are unique to one or the other, but even those you can judge as hard (players with 1k+ hours have very different degrees of skill on it) and easy (same players barely miss). When I look at the skills these games have this way, I can see that Quake ends up with many more skills that are still done poorly by experienced players, whereas in Dota, even a 3k player does most of the stuff a pro player does just fine.

It's just your stubbornness that doesn't allow you to see this comparison.

As much as I love Quake, the only thing that makes it hard is the competition in it, and this is true for any game. The only way you can make such argument (another game being easier) is: either because it has less competition (measured in how many people put in how much practice) or because players reach the skill cap (i.e. many top players have perfect execution, canceling out that factor). As far as I know people are putting insane practice, and you still have players out-exec others, so let's not say it's easy.

You missed a way in which games are unequal.

A skillcap consists of a number of skills that have each are, on average, 0 - 100% capped by players who have played 100h - 1000h - 10 000h.

Clicking a player to land a skill on him in dota, for example, is very near being capped with all players who have 1000h or more in the game. Microing a reaver shuttle combo in sc is probably not 50% near being complete for even players who have played a 1000 hours.

This way a game can still be competitive and be nearer the skill caps for most of it's skills, like dota, where, for example, for lasthitting players are on average pretty close to 100% after several thousand hours of play.

So a harder game simply has more skills that are farther from being capped by players who have played, on average, 100h - 500h - 1000h and more.

Are you good at dota2 or are you just bashing it?

I am not an expert, but I find it very hard to believe the game is skill capped already. My understanding is that maximising the income of your lane, while landing last hits, denying last hits, avoiding ganking, etc is complicated, and seems complex enough for players to dominate others.

Don't take me wrong, maybe I don't know shit, and the game is indeed capped. I'm just not sure how much you know about it. Reducing dota2 skill to 'clicking a player to land a skill on him' seems like reducing fighting in quake to 'move your mouse until he's on crosshair then fire'.

hes clueless, and i say that a top 0.some% highest mmr in dota

example: played with friends yesterday, i told one on my teammate to doom (long duration silence) enemy brewmaster. he was successful less than 25% of the time, should be other way around

You took an example where positioning, teamwork, blinking in properly and possibly many other things go into it, it's also one of the more complex / timing sensitive spell uses you can think of. You know the whole teams will be working to make that happen / not happen. You know perfectly well I just meant clicking a player to land a skill on him in reasonable time (so basically not dooming a creep), which all decent players can do very well.

i honestly have no clue what you mean by clicking a player to land a skill. if you believe that applies to games where the people arent beginners, youre utterly dumb beyond belief. the fact that you believe the game is that simple just proves how utterly clueless you are.

and no, dooming a brewmaster is not complex, or even very strict timing wise. my skywrath silences fucking batriders before they get their ult off, and my mechanical abilities are weaker than a lot of the players within my skill bracket. the thing is, you cant leave holes like that in your game regardless of whatever spell you use.

like the shit youre saying is so fundamentally unthoughtful. its like saying hitting 40% lg on cooller isnt hard because youre able to hit a bot with that accuracy.

I just explained to you that I didn't include such especially complex cases of "clicking a player to land a spell on him", I just meant exactly what I wrote.

You seem to quickly go to "oh you must think this very complex, quite rare example is what every noob can do".

its not a especially complex move, its very standard and to expected most of the time.

like: like the shit youre saying is so fundamentally unthoughtful. its like saying hitting 40% lg on cooller isnt hard because youre able to hit a bot with that accuracy.

no it's not, again, there are a few spells each game that are like that, and all the others matter 10x less and are much less mechanically intensive

OH THE THINGS YOU DONT KNOW

sure, all those nukes and the stuns to simply keep enemies in place are sooo hard

yup, u keep telling yourself that nothing you do matters while being stuck at 2k rating, you and your perfect understanding of how the game is played. now im gonna win quakecon with my 60% lg against bots!!

so you're telling me this is exactly like comparing lg vs bots? Running up to a person and stunning him is just as much harder in a pro game than in a bot game as hitting lg vs cooller is harder than in a bot game?




Seriously?

yeah, you will die 10 times over by "Running up to a person and stunning him" unless your stun is longer range than his vision is. i dominate the offlane 1v3 when i play with friends on 3k rating, basically every time i go mid i first blood and spire completely out of control as the lanes are ending. unless i fuck up my game, whatever the enemy throws at me, i rarely get hit. and i know fucking jackshit about playing mid or offlane. 5k rated mid players gets fucking SMASHED by 6k+ in mid. if u want, we can 1v1 mid if u would like

what can I say, you're good at changing topics / inserting some weird scenarios into a simple example.

Better players owning shitty players is proof of nothing other than the game not being fully skillcapped at 2k mmr, which I never said it was.

Honestly, I think my explanation was too abstract for you, and you're blinded by all this personal experience of people sucking. It doesn't actually counteract my point in any way, but it's okay.

weird scenario? it happens all the time, if you're moving in to stun someone, lasthitting a creep or moving around in the lane. im not changing topic or implementing some 'weird scenario'. you have a very oversimplified idea of how the game is actually played.

okay, im gonna need some explaining, whos the player who somehow mastered the mechanical side of dota? there are a few that stand out from the rest, but capped, who?

reason i asked if you wanted to play 1v1 mid is because you announced that you're capable of doing the same stuff the pros do. gotta say, from my perspective, you dont even see half the shit going on

You're interjecting a complex scenario in that some of those spells are extremely important (dooming/eulsing/silencing a tide, say), or you're saying that moving up to a player and stunning him will end up in 10 deaths. Meanwhile, 4k players often stun and successfully gank 6k pro players when the pro is taking risks / being greedy. This kind of walking up with a smoke and ganking, or stunning in a lane is simple, and saying a scrub couldn't do it is silly.

(I'm not syaing they'd gank well or at the right times or anything, but the mechanics of ganking are easily mastered comparatively)

Nobody has mastered the mechanical side of dota fully. What I'm saying is that all the good players (say 5k+) do a majority of the skills in dota at 90+%, and the pros just do it a few percent better. It's the fact that there's a lot of these tiny compounding fails that everybody does that separates pros from the rest, but if we isolate almost any specific skill in dota, it's easy.

Compared to Quake, or Starcraft, where even tiny portions of the game in and of themselves can be a whole game (defrag, macro / micro games in starcraft, finally a large portion of dota is basically a part of wc3..), because each is complex enough.

I'm not claiming I'd defeat you or anyone in mid. What I'm saying that taking a specific skill, like winning mid, isolating it and practicing, it would take me muuuuch less time to beat 5ks in 1v1 mid without distractions than to get an lg of a good player in quake, or the timing, or basically any other core skill in quake.

I watch tons of streams, tournaments and other shit, so I'd like to think I understand dota much better than I play it. Even when watching pro players, I can usually understand their reasoning, or their mistakes. If I don't, usually discussions with people clear it up soon enough, so it doesn't seem like there's much I totally miss.

the motion is easy, just as easy as walking into a room and grabbing quad against 102, just hold down w and take it, no problem. if you say anything else you're just interjecting a complex scenario thats false. you keep telling me its as easy as 'Running up to a person and stunning him", while i have personal experience playing against pros and im telling you its not.

Nobody has mastered the mechanical side of dota fully. What I'm saying is that all the good players (say 5k+) do a majority of the skills in dota at 90+%, and the pros just do it a few percent better. It's the fact that there's a lot of these tiny compounding fails that everybody does that separates pros from the rest, but if we isolate almost any specific skill in dota, it's easy.

LMAO GET A FUCKING CLUE. the only time that you were close to getting full utility out of your spells was when you were able to use vacuum on targets slept by nagas ulti. honestly, you have no idea what the fuck ur talking about :D

i learned how to strafejump within weeks, by the time that i had played for about 2.5-3 years in quake, i was able to outaim opponents well above 2k elo.
about some 10 years in dota, i still struggle with shit like canceling the backswing after attacking or casting spells on certain heroes, even fucking lasthitting can be difficult. like, host a game and pick luna, try to keep the lane from pushing while simultaneously getting every lasthit, i promise you that you will fail both. i can make a very long list of things that not only you, but most pros will fuck up occasionally.

5k rated players still get absolutely TRASHED against slightly better 6ks, who then in turn get fucked by pros, and its not like playing mid is the most demanding thing mechanically in dota, far from it.

i learned how to strafejump within weeks, by the time that i had played for about 2.5-3 years in quake, i was able to outaim opponents well above 2k elo.

even fucking lasthitting can be difficult

Yeah aiming in QL is easy, meanwhile lasthitting in dota every 5k totally doens't get a few lasthits below a pro like a said they do.

It seems we can't agree about facts here. How about we call it a day.

i could get 90% of the lasthits given the right circumstances, but remaining the wave stagnant in front of the tower or under the tower, no. and no, thats not interjecting any sort of complexity into the situation, its simply necessity to not feeding the enemy offlane

Okay, I don't know much about advanced wave control techniques, I only keep +1 catapult on the enemy side and try to keep the creep number the same. What else do they do?

YOU NEVER PUSH THE LANE INTO A POSITION WHERE THE ENEMY OFFLANE CAN GET FREE EXPERIENCE WITHOUT EXPOSING HIMSELF TO IMMINENT DEATH LOL

that I obviously understand, I was asking about the actual techniques.

I'm not so sure we can agree on anything, you seem to think that say, lasthitting is actually hard. Or a simple smoke into walk up into stun gank, which, again, 4k people seem to be able to execute on a pro.

Nearly every little thing in dota is easy. You can't accept obvious facts related to that, so what can i do.

well easiest technique would be dealing more damage to your own creeps than you do enemys, then you'll be lasthitting under your own tower unless you wanna severely fuck up your teams xp gain (support pulling creepcamps).

i told you already, unless you're attacking from an advantageous range, which smoke grants (u realistically get 4-5 per game, wasting them carelessly will rarely pay off, so i dont see why you would use it as an accurate depiction of the game). if you're not ganking with smoke, go watch game 1 of alliance vs pr from yesterday, see how many times alliance were busted while trying to gank. thats several scenarios in ONE GAME, okay? like, the fact that u dont believe thats happening is fucking retarded, honestly.

you claim that everything in dota is easy, yet you're playing at fucking trashtier... because of choice? you dont honestly expect me to believe that, right?

I've seen like thousands of ganks. A simple gank isn't hard to pull off, what you're talking about is pro team reactions to those ganks, which obviously are more complex, but largely irrelevant, because we were only talking basic awareness and mechanics for a simple fucking gank that, AGAIN, works on 6k players all the time.

you claim that everything in dota is easy, yet you're playing at fucking trashtier... because of choice? you dont honestly expect me to believe that, right?

I didn't say it was easy to be good at dota, only that it was the skills themselves were easy COMPARED to other games. If I put my mind to it, or any scrub did for that matter, I could learn nearly any specific skill in dota fast, only there's tons of them, so my overall gameplay wouldn't become pro or anything, just that thing.

Do you believe that bowling is easier than football or no? This wouldn't mean that it's easy to become a bowling pro, in fact you might need a very rare specific talent and a lot of work on top of that, but that wouldn't make bowling as hard as football would it? So talk with this comparison in mind, I don't feel like reacting to any more of those "why do you suck if the game is easy" lines.

no, guy, they rarely work in the overly simplified way youre describing it. need i remind you, i have played against pros and whatnot. whatever experience you think you have accumulated by watching streams is complete non-sense. you whole argument is based on that an enemy is completely unexpecting, which could be translated to saying quake is easy because you can attack enemies from behind.

check the difference in teamfight ability now compared to when you were able to use vacuum on people slept by nagas ultimate. if you think spells are being fully utilised, you're absolutely deluding yourself.

whether bowling is easier than football isnt for me to judge, i havent the experience required in neither field. sure ive watched bowled a strike and a spare, but i wouldnt get that lucky however many times in a row to get a perfect game. really, i would have to a complete fool to speak to the merit of either one of them

whether bowling is easier than football isnt for me to judge, i havent the experience required in neither field. sure ive watched bowled a strike and a spare, but i wouldnt get that lucky however many times in a row to get a perfect game. really, i would have to a complete fool to speak to the merit of either one of them

I'm done

well, really, how hard is football? you learn a few rules and kick the ball. i have even scored goals in official games back when i was 9 or something. yes, i do find everything in football easily managed. hey, i just realised something, your experience in dota is a lot like mine when it comes to football! goddam fool

yes, i do find everything in football easily managed.

Sure you do mate.

do you honestly not see what im doing or are you intentionally arguing against yourself

Nobody finds football easy, lots of people find dota easy. Your point is shitty.


And besides, considering that you don't even admit that bowling is easier than football, arguing with you is useless. You're just gonna find cracks of things newbies fail to point at endlessly and ignore that the main things in the game are easy to learn.

oh, is that the same lots that would stand to make millions if they actually won shit? yeah, what fucking merit that is. just equally clueless people as yourself spewing the same horse shit while not even being remotely close to relatively competitive with any half decent player. you sure have some merit behind that argument, a very strong foundation.

as i told you already: i have scored goals when i was 9, therefor football is easy. that really shouldnt be a strange concept to you

Again, you're ignoring what I said specifically - an easier game doesn't mean it's easy to win at it.

i have scored goals when i was 9, therefor football is easy.

You didn't do well at the mecahanics of the game though, neither advanced kicks nor the basic ones. In dota, a newbie can start doing well at those much much sooner.

I don't even know why I'm replying anymore though. Unless you accept my bowling & football example, you're basically admitting that you think if something is hard to be the best at, it's not easier than anything else.

and guess what guy, you're not doing well mechanically in dota. you're playing against people who are as mechanically incapable as you, where a mechanically stronger player fucking wins playing one-handed. i have offered to play you 1v1 mid where mechanics is ultimately gonna decide the winner, given you examples of where "running up and stunning someone" is suicide. i have given you examples of where spells are being utilised to a MUCH greater degree than it currently is in professional dota.

you dont even know what kind of mechanical demands are required to play on a decent level in pubs and even less so in a professional game, where more often than not its the mechanics that are going to set you apart from your opponent.

the reason i dont accept your bowling/football analogy is because its utter bullshit. quake as a game is not the equivalent of fucking FOOTBALL lol, nor is dota fucking bowling. it holds no actual purpose outside of your deluded thinking, which i see no reason to entertain. if you said that dota isnt as mechanically challenging as starcraft or warcraft 3, i could accept that, but quake? lmao, get a hold of yourself

I didn't equate Quake to football, nor dota to bowling. I simply compared football to bowling to shut down the stupid yet popular point that "all the games are equally difficult". Since you can't agree to that, we're just not moving further.

So now you're saying that a blantantly mechanically dumbed down version of an RTS isn't even MECHANICALLY easier than Quake? lol. You're probably just trolling esr, I guess. Boring.

quake learning curve is steep to begin with, thats it. once you've learned some movement mechanics and some half-proper aiming, you're pretty much set (two or so years of playing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_RqBjOSPU ). i outaim a lot of people well into 2k elos without a lot of practice.

so for dota, using your spells at the right moment, hitting key targets and as many outside of that with every aoe is fucking hard. try playing lion, chain your hex perfectly with other peoples ccs and hit another 2 with your stun, then you might be low on mana so you'll need to manaburn to get your ulti off. try microing fucking chen as well as puppey or akke does, or visage, or invoker with aghs and refreshers, while all at the same time avoiding shit the enemy throws at you. i can confidently say you're doing a fraction of what your hero is capable off, against people who are equally as shit

"oh yes look at how I win at this micro minigame in starcraft vs some pro only after two years of play, sc is easy!"

You're getting more ridiculous as you go. Meanwhile people hit 5k in dota with half a year in play, and that's closer to a dota pro than you'll ever be to a quake pro.

Even if I did for a moment consider your cute dumbed down rts examples actually more difficult than a 3d deathmatch shooter, which makes no sense at all, they're still examples of a dumbed down rts, and starcraft is what, ten times more mechanically difficult, and partly due to that also more strategically deep as well.

Praising mechanical complexity of dota when you can see people can do 10x more of the same in starcraft is just blantant dishonesty, period. In what shooter do people do more mechanically complex things than in Quake?

your whole argument that quake in particular is more mechanically demanding than dota.
who hit 5k mmr in dota after playing for 6 months? also, 5k mmr is quite a long way from playing professionally, like really long. gotta say, feels like you're cooking up some more crackpot-ideas right now

well i would say most fps game that demands a higher level of aiming is more mechanically difficult than quake is, cs 1.6 for instance.
like, your entire idea of the mechanically difficulties for quake are severely overestimated.

never said dota is more mechanically demanding than starcraft or wc3, but quake, it is.

I think oreozz from esr said so, can't find the post anymore though.

I totally won't bother with your points about Quake though, I mean are you even trying :)

okay, what mechanics are so difficult in quake?

also lets not call it a day i wanna hear you admit that youre wrong

I'm not very good, though I'm good enough to do most of the things pros do, just quite imperfectly.

No I didn't mean to say that dota is skill capped, nor did I reduce it to clicking a player to land a skill on him, it was just an example. What I said was that compared to quake, there are so many skills that are 90-95% capped for very experienced (2k hours?) players, and there are way fewer skills that these experienced players are like 20% at.

So the majority of the time what the pros do is just one make a few less mistakes, do teamwork , and most importantly, understand drafting and just generally the heroes/items better. That last one is crucial, as it's basically what separates pro teams.

Just imagine that if a pro hit X% rail on a top tier opponent, a 1000 hour scrub would hit 0.7X. If he's good at it, he might hit 0.9X. And most of the skills would be like that in dota. It'd be really hard to hit 0.95X or 1X, and that difference would stack up hard, as it's a RPG after all, but it would always be a small small difference compared to what starcraft players, or Quake players would do.

So if this 1k hour scrub got into a pro game where his team was owning, they had like a 20k gold advantage, he was carry, he didn't have a complicated role or anything, he would do fine. I've wrecked in games where my opponents were of a muuuuuuch higher skill, for example. It's just about whether you get tested enough times, and if you don't, you can do really well almost independent of your skill.

That excludes one main category, it's game sense, which just is hard. And understanding the meta after a patch is a huge gamble that very few players do well in, and with the next patch it's just all reset.

So winning in dota isn't easy, if you try hard you may be 95% in most of these skills and assuming you have a good captain / drafter you can even standin to a good team and do well, but if you get tested enough that extra 5% you're missing will hurt you bad.

But the fact that most of the skills in the game are much nearer to being capped than in, say, starcraft, makes it an easy game.

But the fact that most of the skills in the game are much nearer to being capped than in, say, starcraft, makes it an easy game.

Can you give an accurate definition of "a skill being capped"?

A player with X hours spent practicing the skill always does it correctly. I guess this ranges from 1 person with 20k hours in the game total can do it, to every player with 1k hours in the game does it 98% of the time (it's only near being capped in this case).

Both of these are valuable in this discussion, I suppose.

In that case I have to ask "What is correct aim? What is a correct movement? Correct dodging? Correct SC2 split/blink/drop etc. micro?"

Other questions might be even harder: "What is correct SC2 macro? Correct decision making in a quake/CS/any other shooter which offers multiple tactical opportunities? What is a correct chess move?

I neither play nor watch Dota, so I have no understanding of the game, but I am willing to bet that there quite a few skills involved which offer a wider skill range than a binary "correct" / "not correct" choice.

Also your definition of skill-cap would imply several other things (which you wouldn't appreciate at all), thus I suggest to find another more accurate definition.

In order to avoid any implications, my definition of skill cap would look something like that: Skill cap is the point where it is no longer possible to improve a specific skill, due to game rules or physical limitations.

"correct aim" would be 100% with hitscan weapons, etc. Obviously the word correct gets messy with some of the situations you pointed out, I meant correct for skills that it applies to, and I suppose I have to end up with your definition if I venture onto other, more broad skills.

So fair point.

"correct aim" would be 100% with hitscan weapons, etc.

I agree. Skill cap on aim would be 100% acc for all weapons with no spread and the statistical equivalent for all weapons with spread. But there is also another aspect to correct/perfect/skill-cap aim: it has to be as fast as possible (i.e. on the 1st possible frame) and it must not interfere with other sub-skills.

Thus we can safely conclude that aiming in shooters is not skill-caped. I would guess that clicking on things swiftly and accurately is an important skill in Dota as well.

If we want to determine how far a game is from being skill capped, we also have to define a second point of reference (average skill, lowest possible skill, etc) - this is extremely messy business.
Apart from that it is only logical that a game with a huge competitive scene will approach the skill cap faster than a game with less competitors who put in less effort. So conclusively I am convinced that the distance to various skill caps is not a suitable parameter to define the difficulty of a game.

Unfortunately I can not offer any other parameters. One might try to argue that the difficulty of a game is proportional to the difficulty to program a bot playing perfectly. But this way of rating has tons of flaws as well.

Thus I reluctantly agree with Memento (http://esreality.com/post/2720523/re-youngest...pid2719219), until someone offers an accurate way to rate the difficulty of games.

How is lowest possible skill messy? You just don't hit anything, or don't cast anything, basically you don't perform as you should. I agree that with decisionmaking, it becomes complex and a huge game of if's, but that's just part of it, and you can analyze that part on its own anyway, in different terms.

I don't see how a larger scene approaching a skill cap faster is that much relevant. Yes, it does effect the average player, but it's not like the average player being able to last hit 50 creeps in 10 minutes during the first week of play would change much because of a bigger scene. It's mostly strategy that is affected, or item and hero choices in dota for example. The real difficult skills don't become much easier and harder, and timescales for reaching "X% fluency, or cap" in them for the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles of best players don't become that much different.


Even if I don't look into these arguments, I couldn't agree with your mode of thinking. Nothing has very good basis for comparison of difficulty, but we all still agree that some meals are harder to cook, some math is harder to learn, some knots are harder to tie. How could you then conclude that all games are of equal difficulty? Even while in some games people go very near most of the skill caps, and in others the best players can only go 50%?

Finally, by your logic we have to conclude that instagib can't be called easier than Quake. Common sense says that's flawed thinking.

Lowest skill is messy because some skills have no discrete lower limit. Let me demonstrate on the example of movement in quake: The fastest possible time to move from point A to point B shall be t_0. The slowest possible time to move from A to B is infinite. The best time that was ever recorded shall be t_1 > t_0. Now if we want to create a comparable measure for how capped out the skill is we need to calculate m_sc = (t_1 - t_0) / (inf - t_0). This will be messy.

I don't see how a larger scene approaching a skill cap faster is that much relevant.

For example someone might claim that Dota is at 95% skill-capped, Quake is at 50% skill-capped, thus Quake has to be the more difficult game. Now I will invent "Game X", which is only played by me and my retarded neighbor. Since both of us are not very talented at the game, we go above 25% of the skill-ceiling. Does that automatically make "Game X" harder than Quake?

we all still agree that some meals are harder to cook, some math is harder to learn, some knots are harder to tie. [...] How could you then conclude that all games are of equal difficulty?

Where exactly did I come to such a conclusion?

I merely pointed out that "distance to skill cap" is not a suitable parameter to rate the difficulty of a game, firstly because it is very difficult to determine that parameter accurately and secondly because that method of rating is biased towards games with less competition.

Lowest skill is messy because some skills have no discrete lower limit. Let me demonstrate on the example of movement in quake: The fastest possible time to move from point A to point B shall be t_0. The slowest possible time to move from A to B is infinite. The best time that was ever recorded shall be t_1 > t_0. Now if we want to create a comparable measure for how capped out the skill is we need to calculate m_sc = (t_1 - t_0) / (inf - t_0). This will be messy.

It's not how I'd calculate how capped out a skill gap is. The skill gap isn't the difference between the retarded player who doesn't understand how to +w to walk, it wouldn't even need to be a number you can calculate, but in this case it might be a set of differences in how, say, 1st, 10th, 50th, and 90th and 99th percentile players do on average. None of these would be infinite. That way, you'd get a good sense of how fast players can be.


It's also improtant how much these skills matter in the game. For example, if very few get those last few miliseconds of speed, but it has 0.0001% difference on the outcome of the match, then obviously the skill doesn't contribute that much to the skill gap between a pro and a noob, as most pros would likely not even practice it.

For example someone might claim that Dota is at 95% skill-capped, Quake is at 50% skill-capped, thus Quake has to be the more difficult game. Now I will invent "Game X", which is only played by me and my retarded neighbor. Since both of us are not very talented at the game, we go above 25% of the skill-ceiling. Does that automatically make "Game X" harder than Quake?

We're talking about two games which at least at some points had tens of thousands of players online at a time, and we could easily have enough data (and most players will have anecdotal experience) for whatever comparisons needed. That game x is hard to measure is quite irrelevant, unless you presume that some games just appeal to extremely talented players and so are more skill-capped despite being harder. I doubt that's often the case when we compare two games played competitively.

I merely pointed out that "distance to skill cap" is not a suitable parameter to rate the difficulty of a game, firstly because it is very difficult to determine that parameter accurately and secondly because that method of rating is biased towards games with less competition.

I think we already created a method for measuring some skills like aiming (including dodging & positioning).

Finally, there's the somewhat subjective, but still possible in the more clear (starcraft vs dota would be one) experience of players that can rate not only difficulty of mechanics, but also strategy, and also the fact that mechanically harder games not only stress you more, and so make strategy more difficult, but also even more deep - you have to think about the bigger differences in mechanicall skill, and thus outcomes in income / macro / micro / aim / dodging / whatever. That's why if we compare games that are similar (RTS vs moba), or games that are considered some of the hardest in their genre ( yes, quake!) and games that are basically a dumbed down version of an RTS, we can conclude even without all this calculation and theory you want to introduce, just with what I said in this paragraph and knowledge about people's experience in the game.

method of rating is biased towards games with less competition.

That's one of the reasons why we go with percentiles rather than raw numbers.

It's not how I'd calculate how capped out a skill gap is. [...] it wouldn't even need to be a number you can calculate

You have introduced the term "skill gap" and I assume that you refer to the difference in a specific skill between any two players. What you mean by "capped out skill gap" is not clear at all.

Finally, there's the somewhat subjective, [...], just with what I said in this paragraph and knowledge about people's experience in the game.

This is exclusively subjective and various people might achieve different results. E.g. palatka has a different opinion and I guess he knows both games better than the both of us.

That's one of the reasons why we go with percentiles rather than raw numbers.

Unfortunately you missed the point complete. More competition = skill cap becomes smaller automatically.

What you mean by "capped out skill gap" is not clear at all.

I should have written a skill cap. The maximum possible skill, not improvable. If the 90th percentile does the same as the 99th, and the impact on the outcome of the game of this is reaching zero, then a skill is capped out, and it's rendered useless for pros. You just learn it and leave it, no need to improve anymore.

This is exclusively subjective and various people might achieve different results. E.g. palatka has a different opinion and I guess he knows both games better than the both of us.

Yeah, people are often like "you can't compare games, apples and oranges blah blah". The same people still say starcraft is mechanically much more difficult than dota, and that Quake is very hard. It's a confused / trolling minority that denies that, which palatka is a part of. If you think about it as well, mechnical difficulty automatically expands strategic depth as well, as every piece of info you have depends on the skill of the players.

Stretching out subjectivity is boring. I really don't see why anyone does it other than to muddy the waters and deny a conclusion they don't want. It never stopped natural philosophers to find out useful knowledge about the world prior to the existence of science, for example.

Unfortunately you missed the point complete. More competition = skill cap becomes smaller automatically

I suppose you mean skill gap here and not the definition of skill cap I explained earlier. Again, what does this change for use of percentiles? The average is still average, the 90th vs the 99th percentile is still the same difference. Only thing that's different is the difference between two closest players, both in the same percentile, but I don't see how that's relevant.

like, go back and watch a game where dark seer could vacuum targets slept by naga, theres a MASSIVE difference in utility. at this point you cant simply be dence, you would have to be lying. spells do not have 1 utility and they are VERY RARELY used to full effectiveness. i feel like ive told you this multiple times, given you scenarios where such things occur, chance and chance again, still you're holding on to some notion that you're correct, without finding anything to argue with or to even remotely prove you right. really, stop lying

1.3 MILLION??


I mean WHAT THE GODDAMN ACTUAL FUCK.

Some Korean starcrafter

Flash started his domination when he was 15 I believe?

Wasnt b100.death like 12 when he totally schooled fatality on hub3tourney1 at cpl?

18-17

it's more the norm for young players to be top tier. maybe not to win tournaments (seems that age is somewhere around 18-24).

think it's more interesting to ask if there are older players (30+) who are top tier.

I think anyone is fine until they are in their 40s. It's just that many people move on when they get in their mid 20s and go off too college. Or lack of time when they get older.

that's been what i've seen in most fps too, but fighting games are a bit different; many top players are in their later 20s and Daigo (age 33) is still a top player.

in sc2: Life @ 16
in brood war: Flash, 1st televised game @ 14, first championship (bacchus osl 2008) @ 15

edit: also for bw: BaBy/TY, tho he didn't win any significant tournaments, he was still recruited by WeMadeFox when he was 12

Wasn't there some hassle about getting av3k to some competition due to his young age? It was years ago, so but I remember clearly there was an issue about getting him into a competition at 16 or so.

I *think* that was reload

newb

Av3k was born in '91, and went to Quakecon '06. His birthday is April 1st and Quakecon is at end of summer.

So he was only 15 and placed 4th, so he meets the criteria for sure.


(actually went and looked it up once I wasn't posting from my phone)

PLOT TWIST !!!!!!!

OLDEST TOP TIER PRO GAMER

Alexander "AK" Laverez. 13 year old Tekken pro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H90ekE0E6o

Do it in sf4 evo lol

Do it in BlazBlue: CP / Guilty Gear Xrd -SIGN- lol

gaiia

he's 14 and two-time world champion

Is he really 14?

Yes

Edit: Another cpm player "es" aka "shaftgod" aka is like 11, or 12, best player in Russia already

Damn, no clue what it takes to be good in post-vo0 cpm, but iirc gaiia was already like 1800 elo in ql 1-2 years ago. Thats just sick.

Well, if one decides to start playing at 1, he'd have 10 years of experience by then... Totally logical isn't it? :-)

wrong, es is a seven year old anime girl

;]

No fucking way.

Ive been watching this 13 year old Sweedish kid play CSGO on twitch and his Global Elite, he cant compete in lans till 16 i think is the rule. Expect to see him at the top in 3 years if he continues to play.

I would tell you his channel but i cant figure out how to find channels i follow when they are not online.

http://www.twitch.tv/YOURUSERNAMEHERE/profile/following

Are you talking about
twitch.tv/officialkevster ?

yes sir! he just got a new PC too so i guess he will start streaming more

I've never watched him stream yet, I keep missing it ... Is he actually "Global Elite" level or did he buy his account?

He is legit you can see in his play, like most young players though their strength is aim, the rest is pretty good too.

His RL friends are mostly Global/Supreme/Eagle future super team in the making

not trying to be mean or anything but this kid obviously got boosted

You think he got boosted from Legendary Eagle to Supreme/Global lol ok. Watch his play and you will see he plays better then DMG/Eagle easily.

Any Supreme/Global who dosnt play with a team is going to be quite a bit worse then what your expecting.

rofl my brother is 11 and is lem i can tell the kid isnt global as his aim is worse than my brother and his decision making is terrible
also the steam account has 9k hours in 1.6 and 3k in go
think about that
pretty sure its a older brother trying to make money of twitch

There's these in every esport/sports

I can't fucking play LoL or Dota, shit makes zero sense to me. I do however love the rage I get when ppl complain about me on their team. hahahaha, glorious

succulent rage tears

HELLO SUMMONER!
DO I SENSE SOME TOXIC BEHAVIOR?
PLEASE! STAHP!
COOPERATE!
THANK YOU!

Lol it turns out there's a reason for me to play this maybe sometimes once a month in like a 100 years.

Back in the days many pros were very young as many games, and the "esport thing" as a whole was also kinda new.

Currently I have no idea lol. clawz is young, like 16 I belive. But I'm not sure if he can be considered pro as in he gets paid for playing. But not many players, if any, in quake gets paid atm I belive.

In csgo there was some american kid that showed potential called "swag" hes also 16 or something. But he was somehow involved in a match fixing scandal were some people made a couple of thousands of $$$ and he got banned from all valve sponsored tournaments indefinitely which basically means no team will pick him up.

In starcraft many of the pros are really young and then have to put their gaming on hold as they get drafted into the army, no idea about names though :p

whole thread makes me lol. mobas are an extreme simplification of both rts's and the better rpg based pvp games and now we're arguing how they are suddenly technically very demanding, to the level of quake? yes, i get the hype and how its going to be the super big e-sports thing with a future that everyone believes in, but people claiming mobas are some amazing height of personal skill are just deluded

i watch a ton of dota2 and half the time the discussion is how the other team got outdrafted and the other half im disgusted how this oversimplification has the spotlight instead of some truly great pvp games, like daoc.

but but you must be pro in all games to compare and QL is slightly easier than the hardest team game ever qw also omg how dare you imply one game is easier than another!!!!!!!1111

You can't compare shit if you aren't at least as successful as God Fatal1ty himself.

Unless you're luckier than him

although the skill sets are very different, and i give any high skill FPS the advantage cause its physical skill is far greater then MOBAs, but dont doubt the coordination between a team and choices made just like Quake in a fraction of the time, often more outcome defining too.

Lol is half of the skill as Dota2, just for the record.

skAven at Unreal Tournament 2004, winning the EuroCup at the age of 15. He has been a top tier player there since he has turned 13.

when is the next cluex tournament shx? looking forward to watch some ut action :D

Apparently, I am not going to host tournaments anymore. Enjoy the history! :)

s1mple is pretty young

unkind

yes

yes

justin !

me

Age: 69