Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to play with people who are better than you

wellcomecollection.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 190 posts

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#121

Post by TheGallopedHigh »

mochomocha wrote: post #116
siffland wrote: post #109

Years ago i used to go bowling with a few friends, i would get like 80 or 90 points and they would get around 225ish. Several months later i was up to getting around 200 points per game. Granted it was all for fun, but just playing with them made me a better bowler (i have not been bowling in a decade now so i would probably be getting around 100 points again). So yeah i lost, but it made me better. As long as you ar…

How do you know your increase was specifically because of them and not practice only?

Likely observing how they handle specific situations, how their technique is etc

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#122

Post by catacombs »

sparsely wrote: post #26

Bananagrams is a word game based on scrabble which has a really elegant catch up mechanic which comes so naturally out of the rules you barely notice. If you are behind you will tend to have more free tiles which don't require large rearrangements, making it easier to see new words. (This breaks down slightly with big skill differences or if you are way way behind but in most cases works perfectly)

Bananagrams is a great game, especially for people who want to improve their word-generating skills for a slower game of Scrabble.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#123

Post by mrgriffin »

bluedino wrote: post #89
mrgriffin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't a very good comparison. Lifting weights isn't a competition in the way that basketball is. I want to say the latter is more "zero-sum", but I'm not sure if that's correct terminology.

There are plenty of competitive weight lifting sports. CrossFit, Olympic lifting, powerlifting...

I had meant to restrict my weight lifting comments to the kind of weight lifting that goes on in gyms (what was being discussed upthread). And I have to confess I don't know much about those sports you named, but do the participants really interact with each other like they would in, say basketball or soccer? Maybe there really is a rule like "there are a finite number of weights, and each can be lifted by at most one person", which would be pretty similar to "there's only one ball, therefore only the player with the ball can score"? And therefore being paired with someone who vastly outclasses you wrt lifting weights will effectively render you unable to participate (by taking all the weights you can lift, similar to taking 100% of the possessions of the ball).

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#124

Post by Riseed »

ycombinete wrote: post #18
fnord123 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I disagree. I will always lose to Magnus Carlsen in Chess. I will always lose to my friends in (insert any FPS game here, I'm bad at all of them). I will always lose to Mew2King in Super Smash Bros: Melee. That's one data point. But I'm sure valve or blizzard or any company with an online gaming community has stats on retention and knows who people want to play with in aggregate. And generally when you play online y…

Yeah, which game of skill is also important. As I commented below, more modular games like squash, where you can get a point here and there, can be played like this. A 600 ELO point difference in chess basically means you will never win, and it becomes futile, and crushing.

I have great fun playing chess with a friend who easily has 600 ELO on me. Before we start each game, we agree it will be one of three types:

1. No holds barred. (I always lose, but nearly won once when they were very distracted.)

2. Like no holds barred, except I can take back my previous move && they sometimes offer “Are you sure that was the best move?” when I’ve done something especially wrong.

3. Them vs. them + me, where I have full access to their skills and knowledge. They suggest moves, and I can ask whether a move is/was a good move, what move they would make, etc. This unsurprisingly results in a 50/50 win rate.

This has been very useful for learning because it balances out the learning with just enough “winning” to keep the game fun.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#125

Post by StacyRoberts »

tluyben2 wrote: post #61
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to get better, train up. This doesn't mesh with why lots of people play things. It's play. It might just be a nice way to pass the time. I would rather play basketball against someone my level than Steph Curry playing all out. I'm not playing to win or even to get better (getting better is fun, but isn't the point). I just want to have fun. For many kinds of play, if you have to train for it, you may as…

And I don't find some games fun anymore if you or anyone around the table goes in for the kill; simple example that most people will know; monopoly. There are strategies to almost surely win but it makes the game boring and even annoying for everyone involved. So we usually added rules to prevent those strategies. If someone 'is better at that' it means he/she is a boring/non-fun player and no-one will play anymore a…

I'm curious to learn more about those monopoly strategies and rules against them.

I think there are times for both kind of play. It's annoying when people only play one kind of way. It's like beating you is all that matters to them.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#126

Post by dragontamer »

Noos wrote: post #78
dragontamer wrote: post #4

Playing with people who are better than you is easy. Just accept they're better than you and keep losing. Decide if you are comfortable with your current skill level or not. If you want to get better, train up. If you are happy with your skill level, then keep losing. That's fine, and I think its healthy to decide to place limits on your skill. Skill is an infinite treadmill: you can continuously get better at pretty…

The issue isn't you lose to Magnus Carlsen. The issue is that when you play chess, all you can play against are wanna-be grandmasters who drive the skill floor up to the point where you need to make a heroic effort just to be mediocre. You have to understand, you are making the hardcore fallacy; you assume everyone will stick to the game no matter what and take whatever abuse or steps they need to git gud. It doesn't…

> And increasingly the skill floor is getting ridiculous. Overwatch University on reddit recommends players post videos of matches for point by point analysis on how to get better, and half the posts are just frustration in dealing with the drudgery of playing so many matches to even climb.

Is Overwatch truly a game that you fundamentally enjoy, win-or-lose ? Or is Overwatch the kind of game where you can only enjoy it if you win?

If playing more Overwatch is "drudgery" to you, then perhaps you should quit. You should enjoy the games you play. I am serious: there's no real reason to stick to a game if it is making you feel bad. We should play games for enjoyment.

> you assume everyone will stick to the game no matter what and take whatever abuse or steps they need to git gud.

My assumption is that a good game must be enjoyed by the "losers".

Bowling, Golf, and races like 5k, Marathon, and video-game speedrunning, have no "losers". Its just people aiming to improve their own score over and over again. Maybe these games are more suited to your personality.

I have a 14-minute Super Mario World (SNES) speedrun (11-exit). Its not world-class or anything, but I did have to practice and study to get to that point. So its a thing I'm proud of.

------------

But yes, I truly do enjoy competitive games that I've chosen to play. BlazBlue, Super Smash Bros, and Competitive Tetris, and Puyo Puyo... I've played these games a lot because I enjoy them, win or lose.

Frankly, you are NOT going to get good at a competitive game unless you enjoy losing a LOT. The best players in the world are incredibly talented, with insane reaction times. And now that I'm over the age of 30, my reaction time has begun to decline, so I'll never be as fast as I used to be. Chances are, I'll never be a world-class fighting game player, its too late for me. Reaction times peak at around age 24 by the way.

That doesn't change my enjoyment of Blazblue or Super Smash Bros. But its something I've accepted in life. I still have a lot of fun playing the game even if I'm locked-out of being a world class player.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#127

Post by DrScientist »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #118
DrScientist wrote: post #107

It's about game balance and design. If I was to play tennis against a professional, it wouldn't really be tennis, it would be a game of 'can I get anywhere near to returning their first shot'. I'd have to play that 'mini-game' for a long time before I could play proper tennis with such a person ( where tactics of the rally come in ). Obviously in reality the professional player would ease up - cos actually just hitti…

You think you can tackle Messi without committing a foul? Keep in mind he's a stereotypical small striker, very high speed and acceleration, he dodges world-class athletes routinely...

By no means every time, but actually sometimes yes.

If you look at professional teams, most of the time defenders win the 1:1 battle. That's why in 90 minutes a win of 3-0 is a good score!

Obviously in an actual game, it's more complex than that - a lot of defending is about denying opportunity to shoot rather than out and out tackling.

I reckon I could get in the way on occasion...

Remember the attacker has the disadvantage of having to move the ball, not just run, while the defender is free to move without the ball.

That's, in part, what creates the balance.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#128

Post by logfromblammo »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #104
tluyben2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I don't find some games fun anymore if you or anyone around the table goes in for the kill; simple example that most people will know; monopoly. There are strategies to almost surely win but it makes the game boring and even annoying for everyone involved. So we usually added rules to prevent those strategies. If someone 'is better at that' it means he/she is a boring/non-fun player and no-one will play anymore a…

I thought the point of Monopoly is to learn that monopolies are not fun, or fair

The point of Monopoly is to make money for the owner of the trademark, and condition people to buy games based on inertia, advertising, and nostalgia rather than complexity, balance, or fun.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#129

Post by JustSomeNobody »

dragontamer wrote: post #4

Playing with people who are better than you is easy. Just accept they're better than you and keep losing. Decide if you are comfortable with your current skill level or not. If you want to get better, train up. If you are happy with your skill level, then keep losing. That's fine, and I think its healthy to decide to place limits on your skill. Skill is an infinite treadmill: you can continuously get better at pretty…

If I'm playing ball against someone who is way better, it's not about win or lose, I might not even get a shot at the basket. I can lose, but if I don't even get to really play, that's not fun.

Re: How to play with people who are better than you

#130

Post by logfromblammo »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #114
Balgair wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You make one wrong move and you know you’re in for 2.5 hrs of pain ... I mean, why continue at that point? That just sounds silly.

Not a Settler of Catan fan, then?

I'm not aware of any move that makes it impossible for any one player to win Settlers of Catan, while still extending the game to 2.5 hours. There are at least four basic strategies that work to win, and it's nearly impossible to block all of them to the other players while still pursuing one yourself.

I have seen people win without ever building a third settlement.

Post reply on HN