What is more important: IQ or mechanics?

[gibson]

Professionalism comes after money. And self-substainability does it too. The only reason aoe3 aoe3 players arent at that level is because of the lack of money.

Well its kind of a chicken and egg type deal cause money also attracts players. But yes, there is little incentive to be a dominant aoe3 player cause it doesn't help one irl.

[momuuu]

So then how did you conclude none of the aoe3 gamers are talented/good at gaming?

[gibson]

Because none of them have had the same success in other games, games which are larger and do have a pro scene. Take for example diarouga who is master 2 or so at sc2. He would get annihilated by any professional player 100 percent of the time. And like I said, I dont see how you can claim that person A is good at a game when there are a large amount of players who are able to beat player A 100 percent of time and are so much better, in fact, that the games are non competitive.

[momuuu]

So if you see a friend run 100 meters in 10.5 seconds you will claim he's not fast?

And that one genius kid in school? Would you call him dumb because there are people in the world that are straight up smarter than him?

And what about lower level professional athletes? Like the football players that are just barely a professional? Those would not stand a chance to beat a top team, would you call those players bad at football?

And that's not even getting into the part where you compare untrained players that don't play professionally to professional gamers who play games for a living.

[gibson]

Obviously I'd say hes a fast runner. That would have won heats at the 2016 Olympics lol.

You're making a massive incorrect assumption that I think just because someone isn't good they're bad. Just cause I think that someone who's in the 90th percentile for a game isnt good doesn't mean I think theyre a bad player.

Also team sports is a little bit different because you can have the best player in the world on your team and not have a successful team in many sports/esports.

Obviously its not fair to compare someone who plays a game casually for 5 hours a week to someone who plays the game competitively for 60 hours a week, however that doesn't change the fact that player A probably isnt good at said game.

[Jaeger]

Obviously I'd say hes a fast runner. That would have won heats at the 2016 Olympics lol.

You're making a massive incorrect assumption that I think just because someone isn't good they're bad. Just cause I think that someone who's in the 90th percentile for a game isnt good doesn't mean I think theyre a bad player.
Also team sports is a little bit different because you can have the best player in the world on your team and not have a successful team in many sports/esports.

Obviously its not fair to compare someone who plays a game casually for 5 hours a week to someone who plays the game competitively for 60 hours a week, however that doesn't change the fact that player A probably isnt good at said game.

Well lets say 11 seconds or whatever makes you a top runner in highschool; you know what the point is. Even if you don’t call them bad you are calling them not good, which is crazy since most people will misunderstand you.

[gibson]

Yea thats fair, I realize I have a different standard than most people, because most people subconsciously use themselves as a basis for good, and most people are average at stuff.

[momuuu]

The problem isn't your standard but your definition of good.

[spoiler=dictionary definition]

Definition of good (Entry 1 of 3)
1a(1) : of a favorable character or tendency
good news

(2) : BOUNTIFUL, FERTILE
good land

(3) : HANDSOME, ATTRACTIVE
good looks

b(1) : SUITABLE, FIT
good to eat

(2) : free from injury or disease
one good arm

(3) : not depreciated
bad money drives out good

(4) : commercially sound
a good risk

(5) : that can be relied on
good for another year
good for a hundred dollars
always good for a laugh

(6) : PROFITABLE, ADVANTAGEOUS
made a very good deal

c(1) : AGREEABLE, PLEASANT
had a good time

(2) : SALUTARY, WHOLESOME
good for a cold

(3) : AMUSING, CLEVER
a good joke

d(1) : of a noticeably large size or quantity : CONSIDERABLE
won by a good margin
a good bit of the time

(2) : FULL
waited a good hour

(3) —used as a word that gives force or emphasis to a statement
a good many of us

e(1) : WELL-FOUNDED, COGENT
good reasons

(2) : TRUE
holds good for society at large

(3) : deserving of respect : HONORABLE
in good standing

(4) : legally valid or effectual
good title

f(1) : ADEQUATE, SATISFACTORY
good care
—often used in faint praise
his serve is only good
— Frank Deford

(2) : conforming to a standard
good English

(3) : liking only things that are of good quality : CHOICE, DISCRIMINATING
good taste

(4) : containing less fat and being less tender than higher grades —used of meat and especially of beef

g sports
(1) of a serve or shot : landing in the proper area of the court in tennis and similar games
The serve was good.

(2) of a shot or kick : successfully done
(basketball) The first foul shot was good but she missed the second one.
(American football) The kick was good from 45 yards.
The kick was no good. [=was missed]

h informal : having everything desired or required : content and not wanting or needing to do anything further
"Do you want anything else to drink?" "No thanks, I'm good."
"I have had girlfriends say, 'Hey, you wanna go walking?' And I'm just not interested. I'm like 'Uh, no, I'm good.' But they keep inviting me!"
— Laila Ali
2a(1) : VIRTUOUS, RIGHT, COMMENDABLE
a good person
good conduct

(2) : KIND, BENEVOLENT
good intentions

b : UPPER-CLASS
a good family
c : COMPETENT, SKILLFUL
a good doctor
d(1) : LOYAL
a good party man
a good Catholic

(2) : CLOSE
a good friend

[/spoiler]

none of those definitions state "literally one of the best persons walking this planet at some task. - Messi is good at football"..

[gibson]

Congrats you can copy paste, hello Metis? Anyway there's nothing in there that contradicts my "definition"

[Cometk]

Its not a bold statement. I consider someone to be good at video games when they are able to support themselves by playing, or if they can play competitively with people who can support themselves by playing. No one who plays aoe3 can do that( to my knowledge at least) so I dont consider anyone to be good. It is rather subjective though. Many peoples definition of good is probably lower than mine.

That's a very weird definition; can't say I understand or agree.

am i wrong or can the discussion just end with this quote? @momuuu @gibson

[gibson]

To expand a little bit since you dont seem to understand the meaning of good, in gaming terms its a completely subjective term. In a vacuum, If aoe had 3 active players, pr10, pr20, and pr30 the pr30 player would be considered good regardless of his actual skill level. If you add in 10 more players and the pr30 player drops to pr20 and all the 10 new players were than pr30 he would no longer be good. You can also specify what you want to be relative to. I am good at age of empires 3 compared to a pr15 player. When most people use the word good, they subconsciously are comparing to themselves. He is a good runner because he can run 100 meters in 11 seconds. Well, relative to the speaker he probably is a good runner. However, if you say he is a good runner relative to Usain Bolt, that's obviously a false statement. Its really a comparison word. There is no objective "good". "good" is constantly changing based on the game and the current skill level. None of the definitions you listed use it in the way iv used it in the previous few sentences. Really the only one that could be relevant is the sporting one, but even that uses is as an objective term, "The kick was good". And that's the beauty of the word is that based on set conditions it can change. Me and my friend has a debate over whether not an NBA basketball player was good. In a vacuum he obviously is. He plays in a league of 400ish players who are the best 400 in the world. But our conditions were is he a good player by NBA standards, and we both agreed that hes a bottom tier player in the NBA and that by the conditions we set he is not a good basketball player. Your conditions for the term good are probably different than mine, and thats okay, but you copy pasting an entire dictionary definition of which next to nothing was relevant shows that you're either just being lazy or have no idea what you're actually talking about

[gibson]

Its not a bold statement. I consider someone to be good at video games when they are able to support themselves by playing, or if they can play competitively with people who can support themselves by playing. No one who plays aoe3 can do that( to my knowledge at least) so I dont consider anyone to be good. It is rather subjective though. Many peoples definition of good is probably lower than mine.

That's a very weird definition; can't say I understand or agree.

am i wrong or can the discussion just end with this statement? @momuuu @gibson

Well it was lazy on my part and seems to contradict what I've said before. A better way of saying it would be that I think that if aoe3 was as big of a game as the big esports, no player currently playing would be a top tier player.

[Mitoe]

You can't know that though. How many top players in AoE3 invest the same amount of time into this game that pro players do into other games? On average esports players invest 10-12+ hours a day into practicing. If one of the current top players took the game that seriously I'm certain there would be at least one or more that could compete in that situation.

You should be arguing that no one at the moment would be able to compete in that scenario with the current amount of effort they put into the game.

[supahons]

Well it was lazy on my part and seems to contradict what I've said before. A better way of saying it would be that I think that if aoe3 was as big of a game as the big esports, no player currently playing would be a top tier player.

Yes, you're probably right theoretically, but you wouldn't find a single player for your esports team nowadays, if you apply your criteria of "good".
The aoe "trashcans" are still the best aoe "trashcans", where do you find better ones?

[gibson]

Yea obviously I can't know that, hence the "I think" lol. But I think its a fair assumption that if you 1000x the player base since no player has really separated themselves currently its unlikely they would otherwise. Could someone, sure. Do I think its likely? No.

[momuuu]

Yea obviously I can't know that, hence the "I think" lol. But I think its a fair assumption that if you 1000x the player base since no player has really separated themselves currently its unlikely they would otherwise. Could someone, sure. Do I think its likely? No.

Wait, that makes no sense? In every sufficiently large competitive game you find that there are only a handful of truly exceptional people that actually seperate themselves from the majority. If you have 1000x the player base (we're looking at millions of players for aoe3 then by the way, that's a huge amount) there almost certainly will be a few exceptional players. At least thats what seems to happen in any competitive game/sport with a large number of players.

[gibson]

Its clearly implied in the statement. Since no player playing the game currently has seperated themselves as obviously the best( Arguments could be made for grunt, ryan bsop or maybe some other older player, but none of them are currently playing so its not relevant), I find it unlikely they would do with a a larger player base.

[Hazza54321]

team: mechanics
1v1: "iq"
i prefer team because im dumb as fuck

[n0el]

@gibson i agree with your logic. I would say though that grunt was clearly exceptional. He was the top of aoc when it was in its first prime and also won RoN super high $$$ tourney. Ryan was as well, he was a top player at the start of sc2 on the level of bw pro players.

[gibson]

big noel agrees with me and thats all that matter!

[momuuu]

Its clearly implied in the statement. Since no player playing the game currently has seperated themselves as obviously the best( Arguments could be made for grunt, ryan bsop or maybe some other older player, but none of them are currently playing so its not relevant), I find it unlikely they would do with a a larger player base.

I hoped it was a typo. I think you fail comprehend what a factor 1000 even means tbh. Also, if you look at ANY game with over a million players, there are exceptional players that seem to be on another level.

[gibson]

Its clearly implied in the statement. Since no player playing the game currently has seperated themselves as obviously the best( Arguments could be made for grunt, ryan bsop or maybe some other older player, but none of them are currently playing so its not relevant), I find it unlikely they would do with a a larger player base.

I hoped it was a typo. I think you fail comprehend what a factor 1000 even means tbh. Also, if you look at ANY game with over a million players, there are exceptional players that seem to be on another level.

10,000 active players x1000 is 10 million players, which is substantially less than the biggest esports games? Its you who arent comprehending what I'm saying. Obviously there are exceptional players. But the top players in the game at this current time would not be exceptional in a larger player base. I dont know how I can spell it out any clearer for you tbh.

[deleted_user]

Gibson is playing probability. Can't see how you argue against that. It's everything!

[bwinner]

Because none of them have had the same success in other games, games which are larger and do have a pro scene. Take for example diarouga who is master 2 or so at sc2. He would get annihilated by any professional player 100 percent of the time. And like I said, I dont see how you can claim that person A is good at a game when there are a large amount of players who are able to beat player A 100 percent of time and are so much better, in fact, that the games are non competitive.

If you want to take this example, diarouga has played sc2 for like 1% of the time he has spent on aoe. and after he had spend this amount of time in aoe3 he was trash and would lose 100% of the time vs tons of aoe3 players. It took him like 20k games to get to the lvl he his now. That's just how it work, btw there is several pro gamer who have played a bit of aoe3 without being successfull at it. I told you the example of tatooh but there is a couple of GM at sc2 that have played a bit of aoe3 I think. (None of them was top at aoe3)
And obviously it's much easier to come from aoe2 to aoe3 than from cs to aoe3. I am pretty sure your cs pro wouldn't even be captain after 3 months (unless he had already played other rts in the past)

[gibson]

You're right they wouldnt be captain, theyd be much much higher, assuming they commited the same amount of time they committed to other games to aoe. Obviously someone isnt gonna come in and instantly be insane. You cant play a game for 10 hours and be the best no matter how good you are, but 40 hours a week for 12 weeks playing with time spent theory crafting and watching recs? EZ