Just how good are YOU? And how do you tell?

*NOOB STATUS*

I JUST PLAY VF /versus/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

I think I'm definitely a beginner, but its all good.

I can do some Lei fei combos but I suck with a stick and sometimes when I play Kumite, I play like I have SARS.

 

By Creed's criteria, I'm a beginner simply because I have no motor skills. I know all the theory, but I can't pull off modified moves or DTEs with any accuracy unless I have a good stick. Plus I have exactly zero competition, so I'm probably horribly lazy on what I'm doing right anyway /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[ QUOTE ]
SummAh said:

I am sorry that I drove u home while I was drunk that night

So sorry, old friend

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't your fault, I wasn't wearing my glasses that night and happen to got in the way of your car which cause you guys to crash. /versus/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

I'm so bad that I need a pad to perform akira's moves and combos which is impossible for me on a stick, damn it. /versus/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

Thanks for the compliments Llanfair - I've played a few people from this board, so they migth be better to ask than I. Jeff and I went head to head for a few days, and I'd say we ended up pretty even. That was back no Ver. C. though.

I think my best feat was beating Mukki once on Ver. C and once on Evolution. Then in a tournament (one of the first on Evo) I beat one of the guys from "Un ga ii" - a team that's on the videos quite a bit.

 

GP, even if you consider yourself an intermediate player in Japan, you would definitely have been in the top tier in the U.S. (Version C at least).

Isn't that kind of sad?

 

I don't think that's sad at all. It's a simple fact of numbers. It's not a shameful thing to admit that the Japanese VF scene produces players that are better than North American players. They have a well established versus scene with tremendous accessibility to thousands of different players.

To be perfectly honest, if there was some way to numerically assess a players skill level and then normalize that by the population of players that one has played, North America would be the best in the world. I'm quite proud of the fact that North America is able to produce players at the level we have despite the fact that most of us play a maximum of 10 different people.

VF in North America became a lot more fun when it stopped caring about the skill level of the Japanese players and started to focus on the skill level of their own. /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[ QUOTE ]
Llanfair said:

I VF in North America became a lot more fun when it stopped caring about the skill level of the Japanese players and started to focus on the skill level of their own. /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you!!!
Really, its nice to see amazing level play, but being that it is highly unlikely myself or most anyone else on this board will approach that level, I find it more productive to study those who are arouind my level here. And again, hell, its a game, doesn't it come down to if your enjoying it?

 

id say i was inter on vf4/evo an advanc on vf3/tb
would be better but aint got my little bro to play against anymore y'see

 

I'm not trying to be disagreeable here, but...

[ QUOTE ]
To be perfectly honest, if there was some way to numerically assess a players skill level and then normalize that by the population of players that one has played, North America would be the best in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if a test like that was possible, I am unsure the result would be the one that you're expecting. I write this seriously and, in all honesty, with as much objectivity as I can allow myself...and actually, I am biased towards your side.

The gap is really wide.

Also, I totally circumscribe to your philosophy--focus on improving oneself, not measuring up to other people.

 

Oh, Jeff, I agree wholeheartedly agree that the gap is wide. But my hypothetical assessment was conceived entirely numerically.

Their population is *thousands* of times larger than ours. That's huge, numerically - especially when the ratio I'm hypothetically referring to is normalized by player population.

What I meant can be exemplified like this:

Let's assume that the average player in North America has a skill level (numerically) of 100. On average this person plays 10 people to have attained that level. ** Note that I think 10 regular VF peers in NA is high, to be honest **

In Japan however, their average playing level is superior - let's say 100 times better. I'm getting this number as I think it's safe to say that the average NA player could win 1/100 matches versus an average Japanese player. I think that's quite a safe estimation. Now, their population of players that they encounter is huge. I'm assuming this at 10000.

So, normalizing the data?

NA player = 100/10 = 10
Japanese player = (100x100)/10000 = 1

This is what I meant. This is a completely ridiculous and impossible form of measurement, I know. But hypothetically speaking it's a testament to how well dedicated NA players can become given the small population of players that get to face on a regular basis.

Now, one could argue that my assumption that the Japanese player is greater than 100 times better is underestimated - that in fact the Japanese skill level exceeds 100 times the NA skill level. My rebuttal to this? An event that even Ice-9 witnessed first hand: Blonde_One - a reputable VF player from North America - beat Kyasao - a highly regarded skillful Japanese player - in Evo while in Korea. There's my 1 in 100. /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I see what you mean--from that perspective, you may be right. That said, I'm not sure I agree normalizing it this way is particularly meaningful; your assumption is that the more competition, the better your average player. That is true, but only to a degree since you don't really need that many players to improve...just enough.

(P.S. Unfortunately, I did not witness Blonde_One defeating Kyasao so I don't know if Kyasao was giving chances heh heh...)

 

[ QUOTE ]
ice-9 said:

I see what you mean--from that perspective, you may be right. That said, I'm not sure I agree normalizing it this way is particularly meaningful; your assumption is that the more competition, the better your average player. That is true, but only to a degree since you don't really need that many players to improve...just enough.

(P.S. Unfortunately, I did not witness Blonde_One defeating Kyasao so I don't know if Kyasao was giving chances heh heh...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto... I think VF is just a video game, its not chess. There are only so many different ways to play a character, so one doesn't really need to play 10000 opponents to be good in VF. Besides, not all of the Japanese players play in 1 arcade, you'd probably play about 20% of them if you reside in Tokyo.

I'd agree with Jeff and say that the gap is really huge, but thats because most of us have too little competition, not because Japan has 10000000 players.

 

I'd agree with Jeff and say that the gap is really huge, but thats because most of us have too little competition, not because Japan has 10000000 players

I'll go ahead and ask the obvious. aren't the two related?

GE

 

I've often wondered about this myself. I don't really know anyone that is a Virtua Fighter player, so I basically end up going through Kumite mode all alone. I use four players for the most part, High King with Pai, Battlelord with Aoi, Stormlord(?) with Kage and 8th Dan with Lei-Fei.

I've no idea what these rankings really mean, but I get the feeling that I could hold my own with actual players. It's a matter of being able to adapt to the competition. Everyone has a particular way they go about fighting and with a few matches a good player should be able to adapt and correct their fighting style accordingly.

As far as not having human competition, I find that even playing against the CPU can teach you new things. Whenever I stop playing for a little while, or pick up a new character it affects (and improves) the way I play the game as a whole... I wouldn't mind some human competition though...

 

I think at an initial glance, the gap may be wide; but I wholeheartedly believe that if NA player had started to play with the JP players at the same time in similar environments, there would be no gap at all. I am sure that if any of the regular vf'er here gets a chance to start playing in japan, any of us can catch up very quickly to their level.

/versus/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

Hey Shadowdean, what do you think of all of this?
Thanks

 

[ QUOTE ]
Llanfair said:

In Japan however, their average playing level is superior - let's say 100 times better. I'm getting this number as I think it's safe to say that the average NA player could win 1/100 matches versus an average Japanese player. I think that's quite a safe estimation. Now, their population of players that they encounter is huge. I'm assuming this at 10000.

So, normalizing the data?

NA player = 100/10 = 10
Japanese player = (100x100)/10000 = 1



[/ QUOTE ]

This breaks down because you just gave the NA guy 10 and the japanese guy 10,000 "regular" opponents. The japanese player benefits from the 20 regulars at his favorite arcade, the other 9,980 people don't alter his skill level a bit, though a few from that 9,980 might wander into his arcade while travelling. 20 is a total guess, but I bet if you ask some japanese players that'll pan out. We're talking regular opponents, right? Those are the ones against whom he accumulates a book of tricks and responses.

Also skill level, rather than being arbitrarily handed out, is based on number of opponents. If I wanted to do some number crunching stuff designed to approximate skill level I'd do something like:

Skill level (natural reflexes, dexterity, yomi, book knowledge) = a range from .5 ~ 1.5
Number of regular opponents = 1~20

Actual worldwide skill level = skill level + (number of opponents * opponent's avg skill level) ..we'd call the opponent's average skill level 1 unless the number was very small (like you have 3 opponents). Then it'd be whatever the actual average of their individual skill levels is.


I think what you're trying to say (but I don't think can prove with numbers) is that as a percentage, the actual skill level of the US is pretty high given the small number of opponents. It's like... japan has a lot of 20+ rated players, and we don't have any... but as a percentage of our population, we have an inordinately high number of 10-15 rated players.

Or maybe you're just trying to point out that north americans have reflexes and dexterity too /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[ QUOTE ]
Ditto... I think VF is just a video game, its not chess. There are only so many different ways to play a character, so one doesn't really need to play 10000 opponents to be good in VF. Besides, not all of the Japanese players play in 1 arcade, you'd probably play about 20% of them if you reside in Tokyo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, VF is not chess. However, just like no two chess are the same, no two VF matches are the same either. There are only so many ways to play a character - sure - but care to put a number on that? It's massive.

You're right about the number of players. At the same time, Tokyo is one city with so many arcades - I would imagine that people play at various arcades quite often seeking different competition - perhaps even going to other towns, like Nagoya, Osaka, etc. That only makes sense - NA players travel distances to play each other, and it's safe to assume the Japanese do similar.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree with Jeff and say that the gap is really huge, but thats because most of us have too little competition, not because Japan has 10000000 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like GE, I'm not quite sure what you meant here. Having 10000000 players equals more competition. So, your comparison contradicts itself. What I think you were trying to get at, like Jeff, was that there is some threshold to the number of competitors required to achieve a certain level of skill. And I think that what you're saying is that at some point, the extra competition makes little difference to improving skill. I can buy that, it makes sense. One could say that competition numbers and skill level follow a Monod Kinetic model:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> |
| _________
| /
Skill | /
| /
| /
|/______________

no. of Competitors</pre><hr />

Determining that threshold wouldn't be extremely difficult to figure out. My assumption of 10000 is not a bad guess, imo. I guess we could find out how many people attempted to qualify for the Japanese Nationals from all of the regional tryouts and use that as an estimate. Anyone have a number on that?

While I'm sure that there may be better ways of normalizing this hypothetical numerical skill assessment, the point still boils down to the fact that NA players need not beat themselves up into thinking they 'suck' compared to the rest of the world. /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif