Skill vs. Talent

[Plume]

So, a Talim player who can't beat a Hilde player spamming charges is the better player, even though the Talim player lost? That's stupid. That's like saying the Maxi player is a better player because he lost to a bubble shield because he didn't take the time to learn how to deal with it.

If Talim wins, then he is pretty much necessarily the better player.
If Hilde wins, it doesn't mean that he's the better player. Maybe he is. But his victory doesn't really prove anything because he had an advantage to start with.
Talim was disadvantaged from the start.

This is what we call theory fighter. Assuming the Maxi and the Algol player are competent, the winner is the better player. But, we weren't talking theory. We were talking about skill and who the better player is against a five move, one combo Algol.

It's more or less theory fighting. There seriously is nothing that Maxi can do. The matchup is just that bad. It's not a question of player skill, it's a question of how many bubbles the Algol player chooses to use.

If that Mitsu is just spamming and falling for the same stuff over and over, then why aren't you doing the same stuff over and over to win instead of trying to play mind games you clearly don't need to use? He's obviously the better player in that situation, because you know how to win, but for some reason fail to do so.

I'm talking about online here.
It's because depending on the character that you play, it can be easier or harder to keep him pressured.
And as everyone knows, his mixups are crazy online. They're easy to perform, and strong.
I can't talk for every character, but as Setsuka, good luck with your mid/throw and slow low mixup game against overly aggressive Mitsurugis who are eager to start their quick mixup game again.

Logic is not equal to theory. And that's pretty much all you're spouting right now. While character match-ups do play a role in high level play, it's up to the players whether or not they can implement the proper tactics necessary win in those match-ups.

There's logic in saying that the winner is not necessarily the best player, because of all the factors.
But yes there's theory in my matchup examples.

 

[IvyFanboy]

Talent will give you a learning advantage and thats all. To be god at ANY fighter one requires study and practice. Skill is the ultimate deciding factor. However talent can add to response timing and etc... but all in all skill is going to be most of the work and talent will just give u an edge,

 

[GATOR]

to nukleurfire. Actually... it means you are stupid. lol. Unless someone told you that you CAN'T bring a gun... it would be STUPID not to. if you feel like you are good enough to go bruce lee on someone's ass even though they HAVE A gun... then that is your choice. You can't cope out and say "you used a gun..cheater..." when you could have used a gun as well. You use the most advanced weapons/characters/WHATEVER that you have at your disposal. So if you use talim and the other person uses Hilde and you lost... all you can say is "I lost."

To the broken arm though... that is a disadvantage and really isn't the same as a talim v hilde match. You PICKED talim. You didn't PICK to have a broken arm.. .. hopefully...

 

[Nukleurfire]

to nukleurfire. Actually... it means you are stupid. lol. Unless someone told you that you CAN'T bring a gun... it would be STUPID not to. if you feel like you are good enough to go bruce lee on someone's ass even though they HAVE A gun... then that is your choice. You can't cope out and say "you used a gun..cheater..." when you could have used a gun as well. You use the most advanced weapons/characters/WHATEVER that you have at your disposal. So if you use talim and the other person uses Hilde and you lost... all you can say is "I lost."

To the broken arm though... that is a disadvantage and really isn't the same as a talim v hilde match. You PICKED talim. You didn't PICK to have a broken arm.. .. hopefully...

It doesn't mean I'm worse at fighting.

 

[GATOR]

FIGHTING..yes it does. Intelligence is a meter in ANYTHING. Does it mean you are worse at ... FIST fighting? No.. because that wasn't what was obviously being measured. Fighting as a whole? Yes.... yes you are worse.

 

[GATOR]

and to plume.. it doesn't matter who you pick... because YOU PICKED THEM. You can't disadvantage yourself... lose... and use the disadvantage as a cope out. same comment about intelligence plays a factor goes into THAT argument. If you both say "we won't use ___" and they DO use that character.. then they are cheating. Cheating makes any comparison of skill sets void. On the other hand.. it can make someone's TALENT truly shine.
_________________________________________
====== DOUBLE POST AUTO-MERGE ======
it doesn't make you a better player by who you picked... what makes you a better player is if you win. REGARDLESS of the character you picked. IF you want a 100% equivalent battle set up... have both ppl pick the same character. Otherwise all you have is win/lose column.

 

[Plume]

it doesn't make you a better player by who you picked... what makes you a better player is if you win. REGARDLESS of the character you picked.

So, someone who uses Mitsurugi and wins with lows is a better player than Rock?

HOW did Mitsurugi win? WHAT did he need to do to win? What work did he do, and what were his options?
How long did he have to practice anything in training mode? How long did it take him to understand the usefulness of his moves?
What did he have to think about during the match? WHAT did he do that says that he played better than the opponent? Did he have to defend himself against anything in particular against Rock?

And compare with Rock. What were his options, what did he have to defend against? What was needed of him to win? Etc.


(No need to give theoric answers, there's no need for any answer. I'm just trying to illustrate a point.)

 

[ZDamned]

In closing I'll reiterate for all of you. Talent = inherent ability to do well at something. Skill=the learned capacity or talent to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both.

Your post was perfect! Up until you defined Skill here. Hehe. You basically re-interated my post with elaboration, but you said Skill is talent, which confuses people. ^_^

 

[TasteTheRainbow]

So, someone who uses Mitsurugi and wins with lows is a better player than Rock?

HOW did Mitsurugi win? WHAT did he need to do to win? What work did he do, and what were his options?
How long did he have to practice anything in training mode? How long did it take him to understand the usefulness of his moves?
What did he have to think about during the match? WHAT did he do that says that he played better than the opponent? Did he have to defend himself against anything in particular against Rock?

And compare with Rock. What were his options, what did he have to defend against? What was needed of him to win? Etc.


(No need to give theoric answers, there's no need for any answer. I'm just trying to illustrate a point.)

What they had to do to win doesn't matter. This isn't Honor Fighter IV or Let's Be Friends IV, it's a fucking fighting game where the only point is to see You Win! at the end of the match, whoever doesn't see that is the loser, no matter who they use or how they played.

You should probably go back to playing Barbie's Friendly Horse Adventure if you can't handle the game. Scrub.

 

[Plume]

How can people not see the difference in skill is that needed between a character that is easy to play effectively against a character that is difficult to play effectively...?


"Common" sense is such a lie...


Just to clarify...
By better player, I DO NOT mean better in the moral sense.

 

[TasteTheRainbow]

How can people not see the difference in skill is that needed between a character that is easy to play effectively against a character that is difficult to play effectively...?


"Common" sense is such a lie...


Just to clarify...
By better player, I DO NOT mean better in the moral sense.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how scrubby you are.

 

[Plume]

Maybe you forgot that a few months ago, you played Lizardman, I played Setsuka, I beat you, and you added me to your friend list...

 

[TasteTheRainbow]

Maybe you forgot that a few months ago, you played Lizardman, I played Setsuka, I beat you, and you added me to your friend list...

Actually I played Starkiller and you played online Maxi in 4 bar lag. Online =/= offline sorry.

So you're still a scrub.

 

[GATOR]

Your post was perfect! Up until you defined Skill here. Hehe. You basically re-interated my post with elaboration, but you said Skill is talent, which confuses people. ^_^

eeps..lol.. to be honest that LAST time i defined it was a copy and paste ... lol. otherwise I probably would have caught that.. I'll make the tiny change now..lol.

To plume... nothing is so cut and dry. but your example goes into the skill vs talent thing in a way. Handicapping ones self for a match is all fine and good.. if you can WIN. Who cares how many times you can do setsuka umbrella combos or yoshi wall combos or rock's just grab.. if the opponent is beating you with 20 lows. As I said before... its not necessarily even that the other person is GOOD.. its that YOU are WORSE than that person is. they know their game plan. Maybe their gameplan is very simple and therefore they can run their gameplan at 100% efficiency very easily. But with ease in performance there becomes ease in being able to get around it. If he is using only lows then you can block low and win. Great. GG end of story. And if you can't block the lows and lose... even more so with KNOWLEDGE that he "keeps going low that stupid bastard" than that is you sucking. And since the idea of "better" has a winner and a loser... you are therefore the loser because..well.. you lost..lol.

we are not saying its a "this isn't my main" type of match. IF you have ANY type of match other than "this is my main and this is yours.. I'm doing my DAMNDEST to win and so are you" your not even ABLE to compare who is better. And maybe in that fact is where we aren't seeing eye to eye. If your main is rock and his main is mitsu and you lose.. then at that point it doesn't matter who you picked.. because you picked with knowledge that this was to see who was better. If your main is set and you pick rock and you lsoe to his mitsu.. and there is nothing on the line... then your both just messing around right? And finally, if rock is not your main but you pick him even given the knowledge you both are trying (or even that he said "we are both trying our hardest so lets GO") then thats you being stupid for not having picked your main and therefore you loseing and being worse because you don't have the common sense to bring a gun to a gun fight (see that reference back to earlier post..lol).

the hows and the whats only relate to SKILL. The wins and the loses relate to "who is better." There is such thing as a "skilless" win. There is no such thing as a loser being better than a winner... You can "play more skillfully" than an opponent and still lose.. but the better player at that given moment won. And if you win the next match.. then YOU become the better player. At which point to see who is the OVERALL better player you look at who won the most OVERALL.

And on the topic of lag. If you go online with KNOWLEDGE that the game doesn't play the same on vs. offline then you are accepting the terms of combat as it may be. In which case if you lose its not because "they abused lag tactics" but rather that the other person is better at you given the domain of the fight...online.
_________________________________________
====== DOUBLE POST AUTO-MERGE ======

How can people not see the difference in skill is that needed between a character that is easy to play effectively against a character that is difficult to play effectively...?


"Common" sense is such a lie...


Just to clarify...
By better player, I DO NOT mean better in the moral sense.

see that is the problem.. you are stricting correlating SKILL to BETTER. They are NOT the same thing. And they don't even necessarily dictate eachother. There is more skill needed to play one over the other... sure. Nobody can argue that. But the BETTER player won. And there is "skill" involved in knowing what works and what not... so its not so easy as simply saying "rock is harder to use and you only used 3 moves with mitsu so I'm more skilled"

 

[Fuzion]

This is like an argument of width versus height. Plume, you're kind of stuck thinking that the player with the broadest range (width) of skills is the better player. What about the player with fewer skills, but the ones he does have are very strong ones (height/strength of his skill). You're likely to win with having the few strongest skills because you're rarely tested on every possible situation in a match to take advantage of knowing a little bit about everything.

So who is the better soul calibur player? It depends on your definition. Most would say that the better player is the one who is most effective aka wins most of the time. Others would say it's the person who is the best student of the game i.e. knows more ins and outs of the game, like lots of different combos and movelists of each character etc (broadest range).

For anyone playing tournaments or really caring about trying to win, you should go with the first definition. Be more effective than your opponent. Find their weaknesses and patch up your own.

 

[GATOR]

shuddup.. we don't wanna hear about MATH!!! lol I say if you take the height times the width (length) you get the area... and that is your overall ability at the game. And if when you smash your rectangle (it might be a square but a square is jsut a specialized rectangle anyway mr. math man right?? lol) against mine... whichever one doesn't shatter is the better player at the game :)

 

[spongebob]

so much head hurt here.

 

[Hoodie_Assassin]

It takes talent to beat someone very skilled.

 

[Fuzion]

shuddup.. we don't wanna hear about MATH!!! lol I say if you take the height times the width (length) you get the area... and that is your overall ability at the game. And if when you smash your rectangle (it might be a square but a square is jsut a specialized rectangle anyway mr. math man right?? lol) against mine... whichever one doesn't shatter is the better player at the game :)

Hehe ;] Well, it is sort of like a bar graph really.. with stuff labeled along the bottom like Throw Breaking, Combo Damage, Ability to Shake Stuns, Ability to get CH on opponent, Ability to react to slow lows, etc. Then you just match up against your opponent and their set and hopefully you can exploit their weaknesses harder than they can exploit yours.

Also, you guys should drop this Talim vs Mitsu apples to oranges comparison if you really want to get at the problem. How about Mitsu vs Mitsu, neither player has decent defense or punishment, but one guy is just turtling up and trying to win with AA and BB while the other one is going all out with 1A, 2K,B, and 3B. The unsafe player there is better than the other one because he's running a more effective strategy than the AA BB guy, since they both have no defense.

That's what I'm saying, you can't just add up the totals from the bar graph and say that one player is better than the other because he has more all around skill. It's only about which of those skills are the most important to beating the other guy, and that is going to be shown to be the better player over time.

 

[Plume]

Actually I played Starkiller and you played online Maxi in 4 bar lag. Online =/= offline sorry.

So you're still a scrub.

Well, no point in trying to convince you that you don't remember correctly or that you might think I'm someone else.

But with ease in performance there becomes ease in being able to get around it.

That's not true.
Especially online, a Mitsurugi who mixes mids and quick lows is simple, only 4-5 moves, and is very hard to stop.

If he is using only lows then you can block low and win. Great. GG end of story.

Yeah, except that Mitsurugi is different. He can be played completely randomly. You can't tell when he's going to use his low. Unless they really, really suck terribly, and still try too hard for some reason. Which most Mitsurugi players don't. They only suck and play brainlessly, nothing more.
...And they don't only use lows. They use MANY lows and mix them with very dangerous mids.

There is no such thing as a loser being better than a winner... You can "play more skillfully" than an opponent and still lose.. but the better player at that given moment won. And if you win the next match.. then YOU become the better player. At which point to see who is the OVERALL better player you look at who won the most OVERALL.

Or maybe that's where we don't see eye to eye.
By your definition, the better player is the one who won the match. By my definition, the better player is the most solid one. The one who can deal with the most bullshit, and one who depends on the least bullshit to win, and the one who wins the most often under this situation.

And hell, even deeper in my opinion, whoever relies on bullshit like Cervantes' shakable stuns but cannot defend themselves against identical bullshit automatically loses in my opinion, even if they win.
It's so much easier to use bullshit than it is to defend against it... Most Mitsurugi can't defend themselves against anything, but they win if they manage to stay on your ass all day by playing randomly.

And on the topic of lag. If you go online with KNOWLEDGE that the game doesn't play the same on vs. offline then you are accepting the terms of combat as it may be. In which case if you lose its not because "they abused lag tactics" but rather that the other person is better at you given the domain of the fight...online.

wut.
Here you're saying that Mitsugi is a better player because he can mix 66B with 1A and 2KB.
_________________________________________
====== DOUBLE POST AUTO-MERGE ======

Also, you guys should drop this Talim vs Mitsu apples to oranges comparison if you really want to get at the problem.

But it's the whole point...
This game HAS apples, and it also has oranges.
Oranges can't be as red as an apple... Well, they can. But the orange is gonna need some help.
Where the apple doesn't have to work for it. It's red. It wins from the start without having to do any work for it.
Would it be more red than the orange even if it had to work for it? Maybe.
But in this situation, it's red without working for it. So it doesn't prove that it's better than the orange.

Damn that's so unclear.