Competitive game based on Skill, not Time played?

[iB CoMpL3XiTy]

Problem is the two variables aren't completely unrelated, since some would argue that the decision making that is enhanced by playing the game more is a skill.

Take FPS games for example, more experienced players will know the map layouts better (by which I mean to an advanced level not just how to get from A to B), will know the best places to spam, will have developed better teamplay etc. That is a 'skill' but a factor in that skill is the amount of time played.

I don't see that as a problem, if someone hasn't learnt a map or hasn't learnt how to work effectively in a team then he or she most likely won't win most of the games they play and therefore won't rank up, Then they will carry on playing at the rank they're at until they learn the map/teamwork.

 

[importedforyou]

The new Counter-Strike would be good

 

[nitram100]

Master quake live or counterstrike for after that you will be able to simply drop into any first person shooter and do pretty well.

 

[badcompany]

skill is only achieved after hours of game play surely?

 

[badcompany]

Master quakeworld for after that you will be able to simply drop into any first person shooter and own them.

 

[nitram100]

 

[Howitzer]

skill is only achieved after hours of game play surely?

lol, some of us just never get as good as some no matter how often we play

 

[HangTime]

I don't see that as a problem, if someone hasn't learnt a map or hasn't learnt how to work effectively in a team then he or she most likely won't win most of the games they play and therefore won't rank up, Then they will carry on playing at the rank they're at until they learn the map/teamwork.

That's assuming the game has some sort of ranking system though, which has an even stronger relationship to time played.

In the game I play competitively (Quakeworld), it is an issue when new players start playing mixes (team pickup games) because some seasoned pros don't like less experienced players 'ruining' the game through poor decision making, no matter how good their combat skills are. In our community it is pretty much unheard of for anyone who's played less than 6 months to be considered a skilled teamplayer, even if their 'raw' skills such as aim, movement etc are good.

 

[deepbroca]

after games have been out for ages and the volume of people playing them is high (e.g. COD on xbox live) then there does seem to be a sort of 'entry level' standard for new players otherwise its just not competitive and isnt fun....

 

[~>Dg<~]

The new Counter-Strike would be good

at moment im playing cod4 promod again until csgo comes out as bf3 is just for pure lols. so hopefully its good and we can get some decent skill again in games

 

[1kiwi]

Tribes ascend. Have dropped BF3 for this. Really nice mature community and Hi Rez are very focused on competitive gameplay. Kind of the oposite to Dice really...

 

[1kiwi]

Problem is the two variables aren't completely unrelated, since some would argue that the decision making that is enhanced by playing the game more is a skill.

Take FPS games for example, more experienced players will know the map layouts better (by which I mean to an advanced level not just how to get from A to B), will know the best places to spam, will have developed better teamplay etc. That is a 'skill' but a factor in that skill is the amount of time played.

I think there is gamesense, map knowldge and reaction speed / judgement. You need all of these if you're going to own.

 

[Deiwos]

skill is only achieved after hours of game play surely?

Quite. Some people will be naturally good at something, but the greats of anything that requires skill gain that through time. I remember one of the chess grand masters saying that to get to his level he needed 10,000 hours of 'chess' be that thinking about it, playing it or whatever. The same definitely applies for most skills. As an example, the very best Magic The Gathering players are those that have spent all their time dedicated to the game.

 

[powlesY]

Counter-Strike even though it's already been said.

Even after 12 years it's still the best competitive game about. I really, really want something a bit more relevant to todays technology but it's just not happening. CSS is rubbish. I tried CS:GO and that's **** aswell.

So annoying that CS:GO is so rubbish because i really, really want to like it. I'd love to get back into the clan scene of a CS game, but for that it's still about getting old mates together and mixing on 1.6.

 

[Omaeka]

I think the OP wants to avoid play-to-win games like Call of Duty where somebody can have a gigantic advantage just for being a higher rank, which eliminates a large part of the skill required to win.

 

[powlesY]

I think the OP wants to avoid play-to-win games like Call of Duty where somebody can have a gigantic advantage just for being a higher rank, which eliminates a large part of the skill required to win.

Indeed. This is why games like Quake, CS, TrackMania etc are the best options.

 

[SheepBeast]

Hope you enjoy getting back into SC2, come on over to the SC2 thread if you want any advice or practice games, and also join the "OcUK" chat channel!

Everyone gets pwned for a while until they learn what the units do and roughly when to build them. But the great thing is that once the system learns your skill level (MMR) then you'll always have a roughly even match not matter how bad/good you are.

I'm mid diamond at the moment but I started off in bronze and I was stuck there for quite a while. The only reason I've moved up is because I've made tangible increases in how good I am. It's very satisfying seeing yourself get better, but it can be incredibly frustrating at times as well when you can't see why you lost