4 ms·

>A skillcap is a level of expertise which allows the players in it to dramatically beat the players which belong to the lower level of expertise. Where are you

by Hasu 11y ago

>A skillcap is a level of expertise which allows the players in it to dramatically beat the players which belong to the lower level of expertise. Where are you getting that definition? I've always seen "skill cap" defined as the highest possible level of skill, beyond which no increased skill can increase performance. "Skill cap" is also not a measure of players, but of game mechanics and games themselves. We might say that checkers has a lower skill cap than chess, or that the bishop has a lower skill cap than the queen, but we wouldn't say that Magnus Carlsen is at a higher skill cap than I am. He's just more skilled. We want unreachable skill caps, so that there's always room for improvement. I'm not sure any game has an infinitely high skill cap.

Retric 11y ago
Unlimited skill caps become boring. Ideally you want players to use and face a range of strategies over time, but in an unlimited skill cap game with no single dominat strategy or hard counters players get stuck perfecting the same approach over time.
derefr 11y ago
I think it's by analogy to the chess piece version you mentioned. A strategy has a skill cap. Therefore, a player who only knows some subset of strategies, where the max skill cap within that set is X, will always eventually be beaten by some other player who knows a strategy outside that set, with a higher skill cap. That player can be said to "have" the skill cap of the highest-skill-cap strategy they're currently aware of. To put it another way: a "perfect" player with mastery of every strategy they are aware of, but with imperfect knowledge of the space of possible strategies, will have a skill level at the game equal to the highest-skill-cap strategy they're aware of. Or, if you only practice the strategies you already have, you'll only ever get as good at the game as your best strategy is powerful. It can be much higher-ROI to explore the game's strategy-space to find higher-skill-cap strategies. Imagine a game where a player who has 80% mastery of a large number of strategies, beats a player with 90% mastery of fewer strategies. The 80% player probably won because one of the strategies they were competent at had a high-enough skill-cap to dominate the other player who didn't know that strategy.

by Hasu 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

Unlimited skill caps become boring. Ideally you want players to use and face a range of strategies over time, but in an unlimited skill cap game with no single dominat strategy or hard counters players get stuck perfecting the same approach over time.

derefr 11y ago

I think it's by analogy to the chess piece version you mentioned. A strategy has a skill cap. Therefore, a player who only knows some subset of strategies, where the max skill cap within that set is X, will always eventually be beaten by some other player who knows a strategy outside that set, with a higher skill cap. That player can be said to "have" the skill cap of the highest-skill-cap strategy they're currently aware of. To put it another way: a "perfect" player with mastery of every strategy they are aware of, but with imperfect knowledge of the space of possible strategies, will have a skill level at the game equal to the highest-skill-cap strategy they're aware of. Or, if you only practice the strategies you already have, you'll only ever get as good at the game as your best strategy is powerful. It can be much higher-ROI to explore the game's strategy-space to find higher-skill-cap strategies. Imagine a game where a player who has 80% mastery of a large number of strategies, beats a player with 90% mastery of fewer strategies. The 80% player probably won because one of the strategies they were competent at had a high-enough skill-cap to dominate the other player who didn't know that strategy.