4 ms·

The issue isn't you lose to Magnus Carlsen. The issue is that when you play chess, all you can play against are wanna-be grandmasters who drive the skill floor

by Noos 7y ago

The issue isn't you lose to Magnus Carlsen. The issue is that when you play chess, all you can play against are wanna-be grandmasters who drive the skill floor up to the point where you need to make a heroic effort just to be mediocre. You have to understand, you are making the hardcore fallacy; you assume everyone will stick to the game no matter what and take whatever abuse or steps they need to git gud. It doesn't work that way; what happens over time is the better people raise the skill floor by driving weaker players out. And increasingly the skill floor is getting ridiculous. Overwatch University on reddit recommends players post videos of matches for point by point analysis on how to get better, and half the posts are just frustration in dealing with the drudgery of playing so many matches to even climb.

munmaek 7y ago
> half the posts are just frustration in dealing with the drudgery of playing so many matches to even climb This has nothing to do with skill floors or ceilings. Then play newer or different games. Overwatch has been out for a while by now. Chess has been out for a rather long time by now. > The issue is that when you play chess, all you can play against are wanna-be grandmasters who drive the skill floor up to the point where you need to make a heroic effort just to be mediocre. On chess.com you start at 800 ELO, on lichess.org you start at 1500(?) ELO and rapidly decline if you lose many games, until you get around where you should be. You do not need to make "heroic effort" in order to start gaining ELO. You do need to learn basic chess theory like how much the pieces are worth, and some strategy, etc, but it's really not that bad if you genuinely like chess. > It doesn't work that way; what happens over time is the better people raise the skill floor by driving weaker players out. Alternatively, people who play push the game forward and make exciting breakthroughs, keeping the game fresh. No one is forcing you to play a game that you don't like. There's no point in shaking our fists at the sky because we didn't start playing a game right when it came out. Games are fascinating when they -don't- explicitly cater to new players. TF2 is a hard game, yet it's one of my most played games at ~1700 hours. Why? Because I was able to improve and because it has a high skill ceiling (and floor) for certain playstyles. Pressing Shift to rocket up as Pharah is totally boring compared to learning how to Rocket Jump as the soldier. Learning how to do that took me weeks, yet it's now one of my favorite aspects of TF2. I have hundreds of hours in tf2 just on jump maps- something that wouldn't be possible if TF2 were designed to have as little skill floor as possible (like overwatch).
- beaconstudios 7y ago
  I would think the ideal to aim for would be an "easy to learn, hard to master" type game. Chess fits this model well, especially with the ELO system matching you with players of similar skill levels so you can improve incrementally. CS:GO, which I used to play, had a similar thing (though it was plagued with other issues). TF2 doesn't seem to have this option and thus new players don't get much of a chance to learn because they're immediately thrown in with people with 1700 hours of gameplay and don't get a chance to learn the necessary skillset incrementally by climbing a ladder.
  - munmaek 7y ago
    Of course. Matchmaking is another issue. Even the new call of duty has had issues with its Super Balanced Matchmaking (SBMM). However I disagree that people don't get a chance to learn. Unlike chess, tf2 is a team game, so even if the teams aren't super balanced it's still possible to play. Unless one team is absolutely stomping the other, which happens more frequently ever since tf2 made some matchmaking changes in the Meet Your Match update- that's a different can of worms.
Eliezer 7y ago
"The hardcore fallacy" is such a useful term I had not heard before. Thank you.
dragontamer 7y ago
> And increasingly the skill floor is getting ridiculous. Overwatch University on reddit recommends players post videos of matches for point by point analysis on how to get better, and half the posts are just frustration in dealing with the drudgery of playing so many matches to even climb. Is Overwatch truly a game that you fundamentally enjoy, win-or-lose ? Or is Overwatch the kind of game where you can only enjoy it if you win? If playing more Overwatch is "drudgery" to you, then perhaps you should quit. You should enjoy the games you play. I am serious: there's no real reason to stick to a game if it is making you feel bad. We should play games for enjoyment. > you assume everyone will stick to the game no matter what and take whatever abuse or steps they need to git gud. My assumption is that a good game must be enjoyed by the "losers". Bowling, Golf, and races like 5k, Marathon, and video-game speedrunning, have no "losers". Its just people aiming to improve their own score over and over again. Maybe these games are more suited to your personality. I have a 14-minute Super Mario World (SNES) speedrun (11-exit). Its not world-class or anything, but I did have to practice and study to get to that point. So its a thing I'm proud of. ------------ But yes, I truly do enjoy competitive games that I've chosen to play. BlazBlue, Super Smash Bros, and Competitive Tetris, and Puyo Puyo... I've played these games a lot because I enjoy them, win or lose. Frankly, you are NOT going to get good at a competitive game unless you enjoy losing a LOT. The best players in the world are incredibly talented, with insane reaction times. And now that I'm over the age of 30, my reaction time has begun to decline, so I'll never be as fast as I used to be. Chances are, I'll never be a world-class fighting game player, its too late for me. Reaction times peak at around age 24 by the way. That doesn't change my enjoyment of Blazblue or Super Smash Bros. But its something I've accepted in life. I still have a lot of fun playing the game even if I'm locked-out of being a world class player.

by Noos 7y ago

munmaek 7y ago

> half the posts are just frustration in dealing with the drudgery of playing so many matches to even climb This has nothing to do with skill floors or ceilings. Then play newer or different games. Overwatch has been out for a while by now. Chess has been out for a rather long time by now. > The issue is that when you play chess, all you can play against are wanna-be grandmasters who drive the skill floor up to the point where you need to make a heroic effort just to be mediocre. On chess.com you start at 800 ELO, on lichess.org you start at 1500(?) ELO and rapidly decline if you lose many games, until you get around where you should be. You do not need to make "heroic effort" in order to start gaining ELO. You do need to learn basic chess theory like how much the pieces are worth, and some strategy, etc, but it's really not that bad if you genuinely like chess. > It doesn't work that way; what happens over time is the better people raise the skill floor by driving weaker players out. Alternatively, people who play push the game forward and make exciting breakthroughs, keeping the game fresh. No one is forcing you to play a game that you don't like. There's no point in shaking our fists at the sky because we didn't start playing a game right when it came out. Games are fascinating when they -don't- explicitly cater to new players. TF2 is a hard game, yet it's one of my most played games at ~1700 hours. Why? Because I was able to improve and because it has a high skill ceiling (and floor) for certain playstyles. Pressing Shift to rocket up as Pharah is totally boring compared to learning how to Rocket Jump as the soldier. Learning how to do that took me weeks, yet it's now one of my favorite aspects of TF2. I have hundreds of hours in tf2 just on jump maps- something that wouldn't be possible if TF2 were designed to have as little skill floor as possible (like overwatch).

beaconstudios 7y ago
I would think the ideal to aim for would be an "easy to learn, hard to master" type game. Chess fits this model well, especially with the ELO system matching you with players of similar skill levels so you can improve incrementally. CS:GO, which I used to play, had a similar thing (though it was plagued with other issues). TF2 doesn't seem to have this option and thus new players don't get much of a chance to learn because they're immediately thrown in with people with 1700 hours of gameplay and don't get a chance to learn the necessary skillset incrementally by climbing a ladder.
- munmaek 7y ago
  Of course. Matchmaking is another issue. Even the new call of duty has had issues with its Super Balanced Matchmaking (SBMM). However I disagree that people don't get a chance to learn. Unlike chess, tf2 is a team game, so even if the teams aren't super balanced it's still possible to play. Unless one team is absolutely stomping the other, which happens more frequently ever since tf2 made some matchmaking changes in the Meet Your Match update- that's a different can of worms.

Eliezer 7y ago

"The hardcore fallacy" is such a useful term I had not heard before. Thank you.

dragontamer 7y ago

> And increasingly the skill floor is getting ridiculous. Overwatch University on reddit recommends players post videos of matches for point by point analysis on how to get better, and half the posts are just frustration in dealing with the drudgery of playing so many matches to even climb. Is Overwatch truly a game that you fundamentally enjoy, win-or-lose ? Or is Overwatch the kind of game where you can only enjoy it if you win? If playing more Overwatch is "drudgery" to you, then perhaps you should quit. You should enjoy the games you play. I am serious: there's no real reason to stick to a game if it is making you feel bad. We should play games for enjoyment. > you assume everyone will stick to the game no matter what and take whatever abuse or steps they need to git gud. My assumption is that a good game must be enjoyed by the "losers". Bowling, Golf, and races like 5k, Marathon, and video-game speedrunning, have no "losers". Its just people aiming to improve their own score over and over again. Maybe these games are more suited to your personality. I have a 14-minute Super Mario World (SNES) speedrun (11-exit). Its not world-class or anything, but I did have to practice and study to get to that point. So its a thing I'm proud of. ------------ But yes, I truly do enjoy competitive games that I've chosen to play. BlazBlue, Super Smash Bros, and Competitive Tetris, and Puyo Puyo... I've played these games a lot because I enjoy them, win or lose. Frankly, you are NOT going to get good at a competitive game unless you enjoy losing a LOT. The best players in the world are incredibly talented, with insane reaction times. And now that I'm over the age of 30, my reaction time has begun to decline, so I'll never be as fast as I used to be. Chances are, I'll never be a world-class fighting game player, its too late for me. Reaction times peak at around age 24 by the way. That doesn't change my enjoyment of Blazblue or Super Smash Bros. But its something I've accepted in life. I still have a lot of fun playing the game even if I'm locked-out of being a world class player.