A theory about level of playing

Skill x time playing + Knowledge of game = Level of playing.

Equation will apply to every game.

(this is just a another stupid thing that everybody
figured out at some point in time, but nobody said it a loud)

Any thoughts about it?

 

You can't apply that to every game. Tic-tac-toe is a game and so is rock paper scissors. For the latter, you play one time and the round is over. Each round is a random guess between three choices. No amount of skill, time playing or knowledge will have a bearing on a random outcome. Many fighting games involve a complex system that have a fixed set of outcomes. Randomness might be introduced by inconsistencies in the game system and your formula may also appear broken by flaws in the character design.

My guess is that there's no one formula that will work for every game.

 

You know there are Rock, Paper, Scissors champs right? There is no such thing as random when your playing against a human.

It applies to more than games. Everything in life goes by this formula or some minor variation I guess.

 

Fair enough about the human element. I had no idea Rock paper scissors was a serious game. I'd like to see a video of that lol.

Replace rock paper scissors with a game of betting by coin tossing. The outcome is random each time.

 

what does "Skill" even mean...
ur ability to learn?

 

No not really. It makes sense..
Although not every game rewards skill over time spent.. but this is irrelevant to your equation.
Having said that couldn't you make an argument for (Skill X knowledge of game) + time playing?

You could also make the argument that time playing and knowledge are directly linked.. as in two people can spend the same amount of time but their knowledge of the game can be different.

 

Like in the case of Bdouble Blade lol

 

"Skill" what do you mean? Ability to handle a stick without dropping it? Intelligence? Ability to read opponent? Adapting to opponent? High execution level?

I find I learn more by not playing the game anyway; so time playing doesn't apply to me but then you could argue that this makes my knowledge of the game higher when I'm not playing but looking into the game/thinking.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that it's said when the brain is under 19 years of the age it absorbs things like a sponge. This is why it's easier for children to learn things and why you hear of "child prodigies."

Everyone's ability to learn is different and even that is a bit vague as some people are good at learning academically while others are more practical.

In short, your theory doesn't work because you don't account for human individuality. This theory would mean that people would all learn at the same rate which just is not realistic.

 

I think confidence and determation are what makes high level players.

Skill is a pretty light term. If it means execution, I would say it has some value. Like Denkai doesn't have the best execution but that doesn't stop him from being arguably the best in the US.

 

^I agree with Cozby.

 

The best players put more value into winning and entitlement. If you value winning, you're going to be more focused.

 

Tic-tac-toe is a broken game. Once you figure out the few tricks, there is absolutely no way anyone can make you lose. My wife and I always end up with stalemates. The only one who loses is my poor niece.

I don't think you can actually make an equation for skill, time spent and game knowledge to decide level of play though. There's a lot more to take into account, like risk taking, creativity, adaptability etc.

Sometimes, you get those guys who have near perfect flowcharts, amazing reflexes and joystick control, but you find one simple loophole in their game and they fall apart. Then there are the guys who are not that great at anything but just somehow guess right all the time.

 

Theres a joke in our xbox live party that some of the guys are aliens and kid nap japanese ppl and steal their strategies or else they wouldnt be that good...

-kaminaryi

this is what makes me sleep better at night.. after a bad day of VF

 

I agree with that to the fullest. Execution helps, but it don't mean jack if the other person is simply guessing right/reacting quicker most of the time.

You can be great at doing instant dbl palms, be a stepping master, and great at fuzzing. But still can lose badly to someone that just simply does P,2P, elbow and throws for their attacks.

 

i was thinking yesterday Feucha, how great your execution is, but you loose because i understand what you are doing, but you dont know what im trying to do. Most of my characters i make my staple the elbo, the rest entirely depend on what you do in all situations.

 

you know while reading this i realized something. I NEVER know what im doing in fighting games, VF included. What i did notice is that i try to understand the habits of people and fight against those. I don't have a true method, i just use the tools provided to try to out-think or understand the person... So in a weird way i guess you can say i have never played VF before.

I know its kinda random for me to say but after reading your posts i can safely say i do almost NONE of what you guys mentioned. maybe if i learned that i could evolve as a VF player but i have a weird fascination for trying to figure people out.

just thought i'd speak my mind

 

I know myself that I have fail reaction speed, and get abused so hard with mid attack / Throw mix up. Even though I already learned how to perform most of Akira's moves off the bat, it does not mean anything if my hand does not react fast enough.

So instead, I try to be random and mind blow my opponent (well since I fight with my neighbours, not at national/international level, its satisfying in my end ). Rather than bait and punish, I do retarded stuff and hope for a lucky shot.

 

@StunPalmOfDoom I usually have something wise, or witty to post, but in this case....

ButtonMash Kungfu?

 

That skill variable needs to be expanded in your equation to it's little components like reaction time and speed of learning habits of opponent. Your equation would be a lot more complex than the one you wrote.

Natural talent (Skill type (time spent training skill + Experience using skill in combat)) = level of playing

Where n just stands for every different skill you could possibly think of. I use n because it's just easier to write it down once.

 

Everyone knows the saying, "With age comes wisdom." I think that directly relates with tenure and experience. If you have been playing VF (or any game) for 15 years, you will likely have the edge on a large amount of your opponents.

Also in regard to what TheWorstPlayer said, if you value winning you are more focused, or at least more determined to win. There is so much truth to this. I definitely play VF because I love it and love to have fun with it, but I also want to win, otherwise in my mind I think, why should I be playing.

I will digress in just a second here, but this also relates to why I always used to harp on people that didn't play ranked matches. I know it's a lost cause now, but I am definitely looking forward to the next console version (if there ever is one). I still feel that rank matches make you better in the long run than player matches because something is on the line.