This has been bothering me for as long as I've been gaming. What is skill? Is it you're ability to input difficult commands into your controller correctly? I've been thinking about this lately after I ran into a guy on Monday Night Combat, who said "I only use the sniper because he's the only one who takes skill, all of the other characters are just point and kill." I completely disagree with his statement, because... To me skill is defined by ones ability to place themselves in situations where they are likely to win. And I've met a lot of people (mostly some tryhards, not all MLG players, infact i will acknowledge that MLG is the most "balanced" rendition of Halo 3) that think that skill is ones ability to aim, or in fighting games, input combo's that are ridiculously hard to input. Now don't get me wrong aiming is a large part of FPS games, but I don't believe that that should be all of what an FPS game is made of, Aiming should be a tie breaker. For instance, In halo 3 if a guy with a Rocket Launcher and a guy with a Battle Rifle get in a mid range duel, The Rocket launcher should always win, unless the terrain conflicts with the Rockets. But, if two guys with Battle Rifles get in a duel, that's where the tie breaker enters, whoever can aim better in that situation should win. What do you guys see as "Skill"?
I think skill is generally the ability to aim and shoot better than the enemy. Planning (for lack of a better word) is about making the confrontation go your way to guarantee a win. I like Call of Duty because it requires more of the planning and less skill; it is important not only to be extremely aware of the surroundings, but also to play off the advantages of whatever weapons and equipment are available. Enemies almost always spawn in a group of their teammates on the far side from their enemies. Call of Duty is more about sorting through and analyzing enormous amounts of information than getting headshots.
I think skill is basically finding a way to win in different situations. One guy on the enemy team has rockets, the other guy on the enemy team has sniper to cover him. Skill is being able to think on the fly to know exactly what to do. How fast they do that, determines the skill. The quicker you know what to do to win the match, fight, duel, or even to take control of something, the better you are. Aiming also takes part in this mentality. Knowing where to aim and when is a part of skill. Aiming is a small part, but it is a part of it. Example: The player just got beat down by a guy with a hammer who's camping at the sniper tower on guardian. Guy with no skill at all's reaction: Run in the same way he went in last time, shooting his AR as he goes. He turns the corner. *WHU-BLAM!* Guy with skill's reaction: Go to the shotgun spawn, and see if there's anything. Spoiler If it's there, he takes it and the stuff in the first spoiler happens. If it isn't, the stuff in the second spoiler happens. Spoiler Crouch walks towards the spot the hammer guy was with his shotgun. Turns the corner and *KA-CHUNK!* the hammer guy's dead. Spoiler Goes to mauler spawn at the blue room (the one with plasma crates). If it's there, he does the stuff in the first spoiler. If it isn't, he does the stuff in the second spoiler. Spoiler Takes the mauler, crouch walks up to the hammer guy's location. He turns the corner and *KA-CHUNK!* *BAM!* he shoots and melees the hammer guy, and kills him. Spoiler Goes to mauler spawn beside gold lift top (if I'm getting these call outs wrong I'm sorry I don't know them I just made these up as I played Guardian a whole bunch) If it's there, he does the stuff in the first spoiler. If it isn't, he does the stuff in the second spoiler. Spoiler Crouch walks to the hammer guy's location, turns the corner and *KA-CHUNK!* *BAM!* he shoots and then melees him for the kill. Spoiler Goes down below gold, crouch walks to below sniper tower room, and takes the sniper. Goes back to gold lift bottom, goes left, up the stairs to blue room, goes to green, goes to that pathway, go to the elbow, and ** headshot.
Skill in gaming is the ability to do something better than someone else through practice. BTW: on even ground battle rifle beats rockets every time at mid range if the battle rifle strafes and couch jumps when the rocket explodes. I'm not sure if it's even possible to be put in a situation where you can't lose in an fps. It is always possible for you to mess up. If you mean knowing how get an advantage on the opponent, I wouldn't say that's skill as much as it is just knowledge of the game mechanics.
Middle range means a lot of places, I mean like an edge of the radar fight (25m). And I changed my OP just for you.
you can survive a minimum of 1 rocket, maximum of 3 at radar, with 4-5 shots, battle rifle would win, just sayin. I know from experience.
Personally, I've always quite liked Sirlin's idea of balance: "A multiplayer game is balanced if a reasonably large number of options available to the player are viable--especially, but not limited to, during high-level play by expert players." - David Sirlin
Way to generalise there.... Ok, so I can genuinely sympathise since even someone who spends a lot of time on the MLG forums could mistake this for the universal MLG mentality. But if you think that sole definition is the mentality of the people who actually make the decisions and play MLG to a high level then you're wrong. No one even close to top 16 thinks that a good shot is all you need to be good, such an attitude would be flying in the face of evidence. So what is skill? Or rather, what makes a good player? (This second question is more what I feel you're talking about, Yoyo) In simple terms: Coordination (as you say in the OP, aiming or the ability to hit difficult shots), Good decision making (choices of positioning, which is incredibly important, which battles to fight, which choices to make when faced with two or more things to do at any given moment etc.), a good mental game (being able to shrug off a mistake or getting screwed over by a spawn, being able to keep a calm, positive and focused attitude when down in a game or against really tough opponents, and in the face of trash) and, in the context of team games, good communication (this isn't as simple as plain callouts, but working well within the team dynamic in terms of the stuff that goes on outside of what you see on screen, being able to fit well with your team mates and make your communication count for a lot). So why is the coordination aspect focused on so much more in terms of people discussion skill? Simple, it's the most quantifiable by a long way. You can look at a players screen for only a few minutes of play and pretty safely decide if they have a good shot or not, it's basically the one of the above most comparable to physical prowess in real life sports. You have to really study a player in a variety of contexts to properly assess the other attributes, and on top of that they are, therefore, often very contextual and so yet harder to quantify even if you know a player and how they play very well. It does not mean they aren't worth considering, quite the opposite. No matter how good you are at consistently hitting really difficult shots, if you don't go in to a game against top MLG players you're not even going to get as far as having the chance to hit those shots, they're gonna out play you with strategy, decision making and teamwork. And again, MLG players realise this as much as anyone, how people can persist in thinking otherwise is simply baffling. It's pretty obvious that smarts has the potential to beat a good shot, especially if smarts has a pretty decent shot as well. Do you think that with prizes of up to $100,000 for a single event, someone who realised this wouldn't have waltzed in and wiped the floor with all these MLG people who focus solely on aim that you're talking about? The players who actually count in MLG (not the ones who tend to gain most attention by mouthing off and generally being there to serve their own egos rather than to work as part of a team and actually do what it takes to win), are there to win. Do you think they'd let 'noob' prejudices about what takes more skill stand in the way of something that logic dictated would win them games? No, they work on their shot because it matters. A lot. If you don't have a good shot, you're not gonna win battles very often, and no amount of strategy can overcoming constantly being 4 down. But, as I said, they also know all too well what else it takes to be a good player, a good team, and win games. It takes incredibly tight strategy, good decision making and a good team dynamic, it goes as far as things like how well you know your team mates' playstyles and are able to predict and work off what they do, and even how much you instinctively trust them in game. Again, the reason people focus so much on shot is because it's by far the most definitive and quantifiable aspect of a player's skill. Also, when talking about a skilled player in absolute terms, the discussion is logically focused on encapsulating how good they are as a standalone unit, ie. 'individual skill'. In this sense, a lot of the things I mentioned above (the ones that revolve around being good as part of a team), become redundant. It's like looking at who's good in FFA compared to in 4v4 at MLG, the former being a great example of what a skilled player actually means in standalone terms. It's not just shot, it's very much about positioning and split second decision making, stuff like how you move and use the geometry to your advantage can make all the difference. It's exactly why Pistola dominated so much in FFA, cause he's a sneaky beaver who also has a great shot. Other Pros have said time and again that he's just damn hard to kill, that same skill translated over to the team game, and as he developed as a team player it really started to show to the point of now, where I'd definitely consider him the best in the game. Skill = how well you play, good MLG players know this. They wouldn't pretend that hitting shots wasn't a major part of this if it wasn't, they're there to win not to talk down to others as 'noobs'. I find the wall of ignorance in much of the MLG community when it comes to talking about skill in Halo incredibly frustrating, so many see individual skill as the be all and end all of how good either the player or the game is, but to generalise us as only talking about aim and that's it? Gimme a break, man. Sorry, I know I extrapolated 3 bracketed letters to a whole long post, but I felt it was a good lead in as MLG is very skilled Halo. On the subject of other games (since I see that this thread is in gaming discussion), I'm pretty useless, Halo is the only game I really know enough about in competitive terms to talk properly about what defines skill. Btw, please don't take the aggy tone of this post the wrong way, I think this is a great thread and potential discussion, I just objected to the generalisation of my MLG kin and used it as a lead in to discussion H3 skill in depth.
Peg I havn't read all of you're post yet but I didn't mean to generalize all MLG players into that category, I meant I know some Tryhards that think aiming is the only skill, I will edit my original post to be more clear on that. And I acknowledge that aiming is a large part of skill in FPS games, but I believe positioning and other aspects contribute larger to skill than aiming.
Lol yeah, I kinda used that as a ranty lead in, since my angle for skill was Halo based and so MLG was an obvious point of reference. Fair point on the tryhards, I'll agree that they're quite numerous to the point of driving me insane as well. I wouldn't worry too hard about overclarifying tbh, I hate generalisation but I blame said tryhards for the image they give MLG more than anyone, I'm just a little tender after some recent, not so MLG-friendly discussions, apologies for venting that. Also, just looked at my post and dang, that's pretty long and ranty, doesn't really make my point too well tbh, apologies . I'll try to condense down my thoughts on skill in Halo at least, as for other games I'd actually be really interested in what other, more informed, people have to say on those. Stuff like SC2 could get some incredibly interesting discussion going so it's so massively in depth as competitive and highly skillful game, also respected (well SC as a name anyway) as one of the most balanced games of all time, if not the most, to address another part of your OP. Compare that to something like SSB, which arguably is much more about just coordination, timing and skill at using the controller, and this debate could be really wide reaching potentially.
Don't even get me started on SSB, it has been my alltime favorite game for almost 6 years, but when Brawl hit, I gave up on it and went to Halo. Skill in Smash Bros has always been about Positioning yourself in a favorable situation over the other player, but Brawl took that away when they added, Tripping, Snake, Metaknight, Tripping, no light shielding, Tripping, and Tripping. First of all Snake has some of THE BEST melee attacks and THE BEST Projectiles, and Metaknight has a disjointed hitbox with no cooldown on any move, so Meta has no Risk, but all reward. Tripping? Really? a random chance of falling over? WWWHHHYYY!!!??? I think they made the tripping animations and said, ****, we never got to use these, I know lets make people trip! And I have not played SC2, so I will not comment on it.
I only just saw this part, and whilst I stand by a players strategic approach to playing being a massive part of skill, I have to disagree with this statement. True these factors are what set players at MLG apart, that's only because the basic skill of aiming is such a basic standard in the game. If you go in with a bad shot, I don't think any amount of smarts will save you enough to come out on top at the end of the tournament.
It depends on the level of aiming were talking about I'm assuming that basic aiming is between 5-6 shots for a br kill rather on working for a 4-5 shot it might be more important to learn how to use height as an advantage.
That's the point, this relies on a basic standard of aiming, above which there is merit, yet most of the smarts people could talk about are considered as merit instead of being included in a converse 'basic standard' of smarts. Of course being able to hit insane shots over just being decent with a BR or Sniper isn't going to be what defines who wins or loses as much as playing smart to a decent level, it's an unfair comparison. Imo, the fact that the appreciated basic standard of shooting to be OK is so high demonstrates how important aim is on a fundamental level. It's become so fundamental to the game that people assume on it, to the point of forgetting how fundamental it is.
Hmmm.... Blade, Armorer, Athletics, Alchemy, Speechcraft, Conjuration, Destruction, Marksman, Lockpicking, Sneak, Block, Hand to Hand. (These are skills in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) I would suppose I would define it as anything you can improve upon. Aiming, you can improve. Grenade throwing, you can improve. Sentry placement, you can improve. But really the only time 'skill' comes into play is when you kick the other guy's ass because Y0uz H@v3 nU Sk1II!!!