221–230 of 307 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone reacts as I did and wonders how it's possible to compete in Tai Chi, the competitive sport [1] is not the slow-movements-in-the-park activity I had in mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushing_hands
its pure bullshido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-KX99T5r3A
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its pure bullshido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-KX99T5r3A
I agree and it's interesting that he also went on to become a black belt in jiu jitsu which is mostly not bullshido.
Yet a lot of the same life lessons are passed on through the right, uh, professor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's true of every sport with a weight class. You want to be the heaviest guy in your classification. I don't think that's metagaming so much as just simple min-maxing.
I wonder why sports with weight categories don't implement floating weight windows? If there is 10kg spread in a given category, place every participant in the center of their own category so they always fight somebody at most 5 kg different from them in either direction and adjust points being earned appropriately (based on weight difference and an impact factor of weight in given sport). Then points will be normali…
It's not as common in MMA, I think. BJJ is often thought to favor the smaller, weaker player but with the less strict ruleset in MMA, open fights aren't as "fair", I think. Physics, basically. Skill level equal, a larger and more muscular and well-conditioned athlete will usually win.
An enjoyable exception to this is the classic BJJ vs. wrestling contest in the early UFCs between Royce Gracie, a 6'1" 180lb guy vs. a seeming bear of a man with proven wrestling skills in 6'2' 250lb Dan Severn. If you're not a fight geek (if you are, you surely already know about these 2) it may be kind of boring to watch and more interesting to read or watch a well-informed analysis with pictures and clips, sort of like a "Gracie Breakdown".
Getting good in almost all games is based on understanding and mastering the fundamentals to the extent that you can make consistently correct (or at least a high degree of 'correctness') decisions based on them. This is true for all esports titles, and probably all games in general. Mastering the fundamentals will make you 'good' to a level that very few people ever reach. It's not until you reach a level where ever…
Agreed. Since a bunch of people seem to be responding to you about competitive games/experiences, my friend left me with the following pointer when he gave me a lengthy rundown on 2D fighters (cleaned up a bit for HN posting): "Tech and meta aren't things to chase after because they're things that come with learning fundamentals. You practice fundamentals until you die". It was like that when I was playing Quake, whe…
The metagame of 2D fighting games is actually a series of very fast rock paper scissors games. It's all about beating the opponent's counter to what they think you'll do.
Getting good in almost all games is based on understanding and mastering the fundamentals to the extent that you can make consistently correct (or at least a high degree of 'correctness') decisions based on them. This is true for all esports titles, and probably all games in general. Mastering the fundamentals will make you 'good' to a level that very few people ever reach. It's not until you reach a level where ever…
This probably says something interesting about have design—but I'm not sure what exactly! One thought is that there are some games where the metagame becomes important at earlier skill levels. Magic the Gathering comes to mind: fundamental skills are certainly important, but understanding the format—even in formats where you don't need a pre-built deck—is important even at a middling skill level, well short of any co…
The main issue at the middle level is that people don't push to the next level of thinking, despite often thinking that they do. The reality is that most people have the thoughts but not consistently. Or, they have the thought, but don't apply it (well) to their decision making.
(I'm going to butcher this concept for this example)
Level one - You play your cards. You look at what you've got; you do stuff that has a big effect based on what you have in your hand. Your opponent's counter-play options aren't considered.
Level two - You now consider that your opponent might counter the cards you play in some fashion, and you adjust accordingly. This is the level most people are at. ('If I play BIG CARD and he just kills it with EASY COUNTER that would be bad...let's hold off on it until there's a lower chance of that happening...')
Level three - You now consider that your opponent is making the same kind of decisions you are. The game becomes more about information. You know that when X card is played, it indicates certain other possibilities. And, you are aware that your opponent might be making the same considerations about you, so you consider the plays you make in the context of how they might be perceived. (A lot of this becomes near-autopilot because of the sheer volume of games put in - often thousands -> tens of thousands).
This is the short version of the concept, but it applies to all games that have incomplete information, MOBAs, Card Games, RTS, and so forth.
you can apply this zen mastery to basically any physical game and always 'win'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience it comes down to two things: 1. People think they already have the fundamentals 'down' 2. Actually mastering the fundamentals can be boring and make a game feel like work (which, if you don't truly enjoy pushing the limits in a game, it is.) A totally random example from League of Legends. 99% of players go into game after game and literally never review their previous games. They will spam games but…
learning so much from you guys lol not even a gamer :) now i think i am going to try to invest into a camera to record my piano practices. i wonder if that would help me get better...
My wife had trouble with a certain move in dog agility until she saw herself do it on video and it was clear what was wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also think fighting games are a good example. Most beginners gravitate towards the special moves and supers. But basic moves and understanding positioning can elevate your game much more.
This is true of real fighting too...
I only box casually for fitness but I like that the teacher tries to teach good habits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
would you guys mind giving examples of what you are calling fundamentals?
In Starcraft, the one that gets hammered on the most for lower-level/newer players is "constantly make workers and spend all your money". The most basic rule of thumb is to not stop making workers until you hit 70 or so. If you do that in silver league, you're going to stomp 99% of your opponents even if your scouting and strategizing and unit compositions are all awful. You could do nothing but make a single unit ty…
I actually had games where I was too focused on this where I hadn't made a single aggressive move, the opponent pushed and saw my massive army and just quit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience it comes down to two things: 1. People think they already have the fundamentals 'down' 2. Actually mastering the fundamentals can be boring and make a game feel like work (which, if you don't truly enjoy pushing the limits in a game, it is.) A totally random example from League of Legends. 99% of players go into game after game and literally never review their previous games. They will spam games but…
> 2. Actually mastering the fundamentals can be boring and make a game feel like work (which, if you don't truly enjoy pushing the limits in a game, it is.) 3. Mastering the fundamentals can just be hard. E.g. movement and aim in most first-person shooters. Mastering these fundamentals can be hard to the point of even professional players having significant gaps, e.g. players that are known to have excellent movement…
Raw aim = mechanics.
Crosshair placement = fundamentals.
Basic Movement = mechanics.
Pathing = fundamentals.
You're absolutely right about things just being hard though. The gaps between even professional players can be huge in one area and nonexistent in another. Once you take that and apply it at the team level, it's easy to understand why a player could shine among a certain group, and do terribly with another, even if both groups were of very similar 'skill.'