ESOCommunity

gl finding games for 8hr per day. I used to do that like in 2011-2012, now the game is just inactive.

No, you need more than 40 hours a week. Most pros play 60+ hours at least.

Edit: Missed some context. I think he would be captain after that time if he had some help. If he was self-taught it's hard to say. RTS is a very different genre from FPS.

Mechanics.

In most of the nilla match ups there is no role for iq. Skirm-goon is simply superiour to any other combination/strat and there is no counter.
For example in dutch mirror, larger skirm counts wins and there is simply no way to "oursmart" your opponent.

About iq, instead of thinking about counters, esoc just nerfs kynesie to shit. Future is only about skirm-goon. The only relevant question is what is optimal skirm/goon count without being punished by a cav switch.

somppukunkku wrote:Mechanics.

In most of the nilla match ups there is no role for iq. Skirm-goon is simply superiour to any other combination/strat and there is no counter.
For example in dutch mirror, larger skirm counts wins and there is simply no way to "oursmart" your opponent.

Small brain gamer

You don't literally need a brain to win nilla mus. You can always go skirm-goon and there is no fear of being countered.
Still, musk types are getting nerfed which is ironic.

Mirrors tend to have an emphasis on mechanics so it's not the greatest example.
There is still room for strategy even in nilla MUs.
But ye I agree mechanics do play a large role, and that's good.

gibson wrote: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.

I don't think that's a fair assumption (assuming it is a correct way to define good player in the first place).
The dynamic of competion would be entirely different with a much larger player base and enough monetary incentive.
The reason why none separates clearly atm is because there is just too much variance in the whole game, both because players are too few and also because the game is unbalanced for the standards of excellence you're looking for. Also poor competitive conditions such as lag, etc.
It is fair to assume, on the contrary, that if you reproduce the same competitive environment of other games then you will have top players who are very good and separate themselves.

There is no room for strategy really.

Do anything non-standard vs skirm-goon and you lose.

Say what you want to say but players like kynesie are the only reason why games remain interesting. Because strats get involved. But still, some people tend to complain when blind skirm-goon with good mechanics is not winnning.

Agree somewhat. I only have fun going thrice greed or proxy stable.

Garja wrote:Mirrors tend to have an emphasis on mechanics so it's not the greatest example.
There is still room for strategy even in nilla MUs.
But ye I agree mechanics do play a large role, and that's good.

gibson wrote: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.

I don't think that's a fair assumption (assuming it is a correct way to define good player in the first place).
The dynamic of competion would be entirely different with a much larger player base and enough monetary incentive.
The reason why none separates clearly atm is because there is just too much variance in the whole game, both because players are too few and also because the game is unbalanced for the standards of excellence you're looking for. Also poor competitive conditions such as lag, etc.
It is fair to assume, on the contrary, that if you reproduce the same competitive environment of other games then you will have top players who are very good and separate themselves.

yea top players will seperate themselves, but they wouldnt be todays top players.

need cCc mechanics

The binary isn't IQ vs mechanics, but rather decision making and mechanics. Decision making includes strategic decisions on which you adapt your game given your scouting, forseeing army movements, looking at deck, checking natural resources spots and others. Mechanics have to do with operational things; what is the more effective way to gather resources, the counter system, know the necessary number for hits to kill a unit, perfecting micro-aiming, know the stats of all the units, the effect of the shipments and many more.

Kaiser sums up nicely how important is strategical thinking in the way that we will never have the perfect mechanical skills, or rather we need to spend a very significant amount of hours to achieve a high level. Therefore we compensate with strategy. Many players have invested a lot of time on the game and have reach a high level of mechanics skill. Combine this with strategical thinking and you have a top ranked player

Kaiserklein wrote:The reason why some people say strats are more important is mostly because it's easier to outplay with decisions at our (very imperfect) level. Since some people (like iamturk) basically don't adapt and take wrong decisions, it's easy to outplay them and win regardless of mechanics.
If you want, knowing how to adapt to x or y situations is a bit like learning maths formulas by heart, while perfect mechanics is like being able to calculate anything like a computer, which is much harder.

With regards professionalism, to be a professional at something it means that you make a living out of it. Often the high ranked players in other game on top of being very good players make a living from the prices in tournaments, from streams or ad revenues. The motivation is clear there. Apart from the fun in the activity, there is an opportunity to gain money out of it. So, considering the competition, you have to polish every tool available at your inventory.

On the matter of IQ (Intelligence Quotient), strictly speaking is the score you achieve to a certain test. Usually tests assess mathematical skill, verbal fluency, spatial visualization, and memory, among other cognitive abilities. I personally like to think that having high IQ means that it is easier for a person to develop new skills related to the above abilities. Both strategical thinking and mechanics can be linked to those skills measured by IQ. A person with high IQ can potentially grasp those faster than one with low. However, training and practice is crucial. A low IQ person might need more hours to invest practicing, thus a larger motivation to achieve that advanced technique.

gibson wrote:Watch pro cs players play pugs and youll see real small brain plays, although its just pugs so they often go for cool plays rather than smart plays, that being said any of them could be the best aoe3 player in probably 4 months, probably way less.

No.

gibson wrote:any pro player in a major esport game could be the top aoe3 player in a matter of months, thats just a fact.

No, that's wrong.

gibson wrote:

Garja wrote:

gibson wrote:any pro player in a major esport game could be the top aoe3 player in a matter of months, thats just a fact.

I have no doubt that a good gamer can probably end up being proficient in another game. Gaming skills are often trasversal and transfer from game to game. This is just an example of what I was trying to say. Saying that you can be top player in a matter of months is bs tho. You simply need time to learn the game and appreciate some things. This is at least if you're self taught. Of course if someone teaches you the entire AOE3 theory that significantly reduces the time it takes.

It depends on the game. In games that have a high skill level its going to take even the best natural gamer years to be great. I remember hearing a dota 2 pro say that someone would have to play dota2 for like a year just to understand the basics. A game like aoe3 however has a relatively low skill level, making it easier to get good. With all the information of builds that top players do and recorded games of top players it would be relatively easy for someone who is naturally good at video games to be able to execute basic but strong builds better than current top players. Now there are certain subtitles to the game that take a bit longer to pick up on, but someone who is naturally talented, driven to win, and willing to put time in could easily be pr35 or higher in a few months, maybe even less.

I think aoe3 is harder than DOTA lol. And watching recorded games for build orders isn't enough xD. A pro player could probably reach pr35-37 in a matter a months, but he wouldn't reach the top player level in just 4 months xD.

gibson wrote: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.

Well, that's because I haven't played sc2 seriously enough lol. Honestly if I had played sc2 as much as I played aoe3, I'd probably be top100 grandmaster.
Furthermore, I would annihilate any sc2 pro player on aoe3, does it mean that they're bad at RTS games? Well, no.

Anyway, I don't think that I'm a talented player, I became good because I got a very good understanding of the game (and I'm actually talented at understanding a game), and I can tell you that it's something you can't do in 4 months.

somppukunkku wrote:Say what you want to say but players like kynesie are the only reason why games remain interesting. Because strats get involved. But still, some people tend to complain when blind skirm-goon with good mechanics is not winnning.

Totally agree!

Garja wrote:Mirrors tend to have an emphasis on mechanics so it's not the greatest example.
There is still room for strategy even in nilla MUs.
But ye I agree mechanics do play a large role, and that's good.

gibson wrote: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.

I don't think that's a fair assumption (assuming it is a correct way to define good player in the first place).
The dynamic of competion would be entirely different with a much larger player base and enough monetary incentive.
The reason why none separates clearly atm is because there is just too much variance in the whole game, both because players are too few and also because the game is unbalanced for the standards of excellence you're looking for. Also poor competitive conditions such as lag, etc.
It is fair to assume, on the contrary, that if you reproduce the same competitive environment of other games then you will have top players who are very good and separate themselves.

Exactly. Its human nature to do only whats required to win, and not much more. There are players who do distinguish, and a few who fight for the scraps at the throne,but theres a) not enough incentive to do this consistently b) not a great competitive environment as a result of the first point, meaning that players slack in their development and arent pushed much to reach greater heights of ability. Usain bolt can run under 10 seconds. But he most likely never would have if his nearest rivals fastest time was 13 seconds.

New strats and new bos are always interesting to watch tbh, they all bring variety to game. also regardless of level I'm not interested at all to watch same guy does goon skirm semi ff %100 of his games tbh. when it comes to a game where skirm goon mass can't work you can see these kind of close minded players start to complain suddenly.

I agree with Umeu on that.
Also you have to keep in mind that aoe3 isn't a competitive game, because of lag, because it's not balanced, and because the game is way too easy mechanically, so you can just blame your loss on aoe3 most of the time.

deleted_user wrote:new strats and new bos are always interesting to watch tbh, they all bring variety to game. also regardless of level I'm not interested at all to watch same guy does goon skirm semi ff %100 of his games tbh. when it comes to a game where skirm goon mass can't work you can see these kind of close minded players start to complain suddenly.

Stop writing poems click in ready and go

cs go pro players would comprehend aoe 3 completely in 4 months and surpass all others? Funny cause every sc2 GM who has came to aoe 3 haven't been able to do that and they come from rts scene and not fps.
Of course you can argue that they're not as "pro" as those cs go guys you're referring to. Further explanation why I think what you say is false. Aoe 3 skill ceiling is so low that becoming very dominant player is hard because the game is way too easy. However the knowledge and fully understanding how the game works takes a lot of time. @gibson

AO3 > SC2

To add to this a bit, there are a few example of former pro gamers that ended up becoming casters and, after having stopped training rigirously, got to something like high master league in sc2, if not lower. This makes gibson's comparison even worse, because that implies that diarouga/lordraphael for example could possibly get grandmaster in sc2 if they made it their job.

momuuu wrote:To add to this a bit, there are a few example of former pro gamers that ended up becoming casters and, after having stopped training rigirously, got to something like high master league in sc2, if not lower. This makes gibson's comparison even worse, because that implies that diarouga/lordraphael for example could possibly get grandmaster in sc2 if they made it their job.

irrelevant, just like basically every comment you've made in this thread. Many people, if they invested enough time(which is a lot of time) and had the proper training, could reach gm. However anyone who knows anything about sc2 knows that the talent difference between a low gm and say a Korean professional is enormous. Anyway, it makes sense that people don't want to believe that someone could be as good or better than them at something while putting in a lot less time. However when you look at pro gamers who have committed substantial time towards other games ( elige being gm at the age of 15 and being one win away from qualifying for WCS 2013 season 1 is the most relevant example, or the mista getting to pr 32 in 200 games, although he'd obviously have a bit easier time than most since he came from another aoe game.) you'll see that they do very well. And btw that doesn't count X sc2 or aoe2 player played 20 hours and was 2nd lt. 20 hours obviously isn't anywhere near enough time.