The Eyes of a Competitor

[Death_Emperor_X]

In all honesty, how long does a competitor think it takes to be great at what a player does in any high level of skill in competitive game play? Or do they think it only takes the power of a high skilled player in raising another player to become a badass? Or is it because the player is born with such amazing skill? Surely some people out there can say they've beaten or witnessed a beating in an advanced player from a beginning player who has not played as much as the others did.

I can honestly say, there were times I myself have began in competitive worlds where I was straight up shitty garbage ass noob who can't do shit (CoD, Halo, DOA). However, they do not last way too long. When the time comes, where I show promising victories in battles I have not played for as long as others have. Does that not mean I'm damn good? In a game I suck in atm (or at least I think I do) is CoD Ghost. After fighting a team of above 3.0 K/D mother fuckers. I find myself going positive, back packing my whole team, & killing the top player when ever I get the chance to see them in battle. Doesn't that make me the badass over that player whose played 10 days more then I did with a ratio that's 4 levels higher then me? I was even quoted by their leader who is a 5.6 K/D ratio that I am damn good. (I don't know about that)

In GOME (Guardians of Middle Earth) I've fought my first battle as a fresh new blood & killed everybody who stood & fought me. This was a game that I wasn't starting out as a shitty noob unusually so. In fact, I've started out as a moderate player. So what it looked like to my eyes. I've killed a lot, died no more then 3 times, & fought high leveled prestigious players. As it may have occurred that the beginning level of player skill isn't consistent in all competitive worlds. Also, not taking me too long to reach expert level. So what is it that really takes a player into being in a high level badassery of skill? (Right now in GOME, I'm easily one of the top 3 players who can fight with mastery skill & win uneven battles with odds against me)

One last thing; what does it take for a high level competitor (tourney or non tourney) to say to another player "That persons damn good" when the stats clearly show that he or she isn't higher then him nor the whole party? Does it simply take a victory or an event of multi-killing in everybody on the field in terms of party games such as CoD or Halo or a serious amount of successful combos, great movement, & excellent spacing in terms of fighting.

PS: If you can, try & leave OP shit out of your answers. If you can't, oh well, DEX does not mind.

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

LOL I went with the "he who does not speak knows" answer.. xD I'm humble, I'm not a scrub, I'm not a noob, I'm not an elite, I'm satisfied with how good I am at a lot of fighting games..

I'd say the level of defining that is, I can beat almost all the people you fight in ranked besides the players who stand out that are really good... They're just great players, but beating 90% of everyone else is an accomplishment enough... =]

Games unlike sports are recreational activities.. I feel like if I try TOO hard to get great at them, it'll ruin the fun mindset of it, and I'll view my level of gaming as an accomplishment, so each defeat would seem like a slap in the face..

 

[Norik]

These threads are pointless. You can't trust anyone to rank their skill on a competitive video game because unskilled players tend to overestimate their skill. This is an actual psychological phenomenon called the Dunning–Kruger effect, and is not exclusive to video games. Essentially, it's a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority. In other words, scrubs think they're better than they really are. Researchers at Cornell University took a random group of people from an assortment of college classes, asked them how good they were at math, and made them all take the same test. They then compared the students' perceived level of skill to their actual test scores. The results are as follows:

​

What's interesting is that this wasn't exclusive to math tests. As the researchers kept evaluating the subjects on a variety of academic and non-academic skills -including calculation speed, reaction time, hand-eye coordination, and several others- the results were always the same: Those among the lower percentiles of skill thought they were better than they truly are, while those who actually knew WTF they were doing consistently under-reported their abilities.

So whenever you ask a group of players how good they are at a game, especially in a place as competitive as the FGC...

• Over half of the people who claim to be better than average are a bunch of fucking liars who've never even been to a tournament.
• The people who claim to be average/moderate are better than that, but consider themselves low-tier because they've played against the big names in tournaments (Woazzhh, Lost Providence, etc) and know damn well what real skill means.
• Those who call themselves masters are either right, or awfully wrong.
• If someone actually calls themselves a pathetic noob, chances are they really are.

TL;DR: Fuck you, read it.

References:

• Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent
• The Dunning–Kruger effect
• Illusory superiority

PS:There's also the fact that a majority of people haven't played a good player in their lives. Being the best online or among your friends doesn't make you good, it just means you're surrounded by scrubs. This skews your perception of reality. ~80% of you fuckers are idiots and can't be trusted to make basic descriptions of yourselves.

EDIT: Since some of you seem to lack basic reading comprehension and deduction abilities, I feel compelled to add the following disclaimer to this post: I am not, nor have I ever been, a competitive player in this or any other video game. I also do not endorse any form of labeling of people, including self-labeling, which is the entire point of this post. Any further response to this post will be ignored.

 

[MightyOmega]

I'd say I'm in between the Moderate and Expert skill range just from the top players that I go toe to toe with at times. Not bragging about anything, because I know I still have a lot more to improve on. Like learning certain match ups for example.

 

[Death_Emperor_X]

Snip

So what your saying is that if a pro of that game saw you fight, seen you win against those he has a tough time against himself & says your good. Your not going to believe him? Sometimes I think you don't give yourself enough credit Norik. I've been complimented by people who have been at tournaments in other games. I've defeated people who have been at tournaments in other games. In CoD Ghost, someone who has a clan of pros that are above 3.0 K/D's who say I'm good, is pretty successful, is it not? It shows that an elite player who thinks great of you is telling you that your progressing more sharply then moderate means, possibly able to win against them if I had a team who were as decent enough to be moderate. You know how fuckin hard it is to get a 3.0? I've also reached rank 15 in Master Division in Black Ops 2, pretty successful, wouldn't you say?

In GOME, I've had times where I took on the entire team all alone & won, 3 times. That's successful, is it not? That games no joke when it comes to team play. Even a noob can prove to be useful in that game when you have your whole team with you. It's hard not to be an essential part of such a fight. Point being, I think people are dug in way too far in that reaching the road to expert level isn't too far away as most might think it is. Master, maybe, but others, I don't think so. Right now, I've done so good in one of the games that I'm showing mastery skill, not saying I am one.