Gauging How Good You Actually Are?

[XoPachi]

There won't be a definite answer to this, but I feel like it would make for some discussion.

I've been playing these games a long time. My family and friends have seen me play them. People I know online have seen me play them. And I generally jump right into the deep end with this genre since I find the harder entries on their maximum difficulty to be the most exhilarating to play.
Most people I know put far too much stock in my abilities with these games and think I'm absolutely amazing because maybe I killed a boss without dying. Or maybe I finished SuperNova without getting a game over and go "I'm decent at them, yea".
But then I look at special demonstrations or people like Jaimers and remind myself I'm actually garbage at them entirely. Where these folks get to loop 2 of these more coveted entries like Ketsui with ease, I start having to bomb by stage 1-5 and will probably eat a life or two in the same stage.
I've even seen some folks even say DoDonPachi 5 is...easy which is, needless to say, humbling (hardestgameI'veeverplayed).

Then you have scoring. lol

It just gets me wondering where the line of high vs low skill is with shooters and where the in-betweens lie.

[blossom]

I do think it's rather subjective. Let's use Battle Bakraid as an example. Player A suicides for bombs as much as possible, chains excellently, near to WR scoring. Player B decides to ignore scoring and drive the rank up for a no-miss run. Which player is more skilled? Are they equally skilled in different ways?

[thegreathopper]

What is Dodonpachi 5? Is that an arcade release.

[Buffi]

What is Dodonpachi 5? Is that an arcade release.

Should be SDOJ I guess

[Plasmo]

Player A suicides for bombs as much as possible, chains excellently, near to WR scoring. Player B decides to ignore scoring and drive the rank up for a no-miss run. Which player is more skilled?

Player A because he knows how to play the game.

[Some-Mist]

Player A suicides for bombs as much as possible, chains excellently, near to WR scoring. Player B decides to ignore scoring and drive the rank up for a no-miss run. Which player is more skilled?

Player A because he knows how to play the game.

^
and then comparing your score to the leaderboards to see how good you are

[CyberAngel]

Don't stress over it too much. Accomplishing anything you couldn't do before is an achievement worth feeling good about, and just because someone can do better or reach it faster doesn't make it any less so.

But if you absolutely have to have some performance metric that doesn't involve scoring, here is a ranked list of clear difficulty for quite a few of the popular games.

[blossom]

Player A suicides for bombs as much as possible, chains excellently, near to WR scoring. Player B decides to ignore scoring and drive the rank up for a no-miss run. Which player is more skilled?

Player A because he knows how to play the game.

I fail to see how a player who can dodge patterns at highest rank doesn't also know how to play the game. And I'm going to assume you don't know how to explain it yourself, considering you didn't make an attempt.

[BIL]

I think no-miss is better thought of as a subcategory, in games where reserve lives are an expendable scoring resource. A player who can clear something like Garegga on a single life undoubtedly has immense knowledge and skill, but the same can be said of a WR holder who will calculatedly jettison lives to boost their score. The game itself will always give the latter #1 on the table, no matter how skilled or deliberately rank-raising the former's survival play.

If the game automatically awarded top scores to no-missers, say through some massive end-game multiplier, those same WR holders would undoubtedly never die either. It'd no longer be "the game" at that point though, it'd be something else entirely.

[Jeneki]

You did something = real skill

Someone else did it but in a different way = fake skill

Someone else did it the same way but better = basement dweller with no life, doesn't count

[davyK]

I posted about this some time ago and got a mixed response...


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=56904

[ACSeraph]

If you can 1cc a shmup you are a good player in my book, definitely in the top percentile of players, even simple clears really do take more effort than casual players could stomach.

Great skill is measured in score though, and I'm saying that as someone who is satisfied with survival in 99% of what I play. In the one game I would consider myself "great" at I learned to No-miss long long before I got top tier scores. Score > No-Miss > Survival

I do think there seem to be players with particularly otherworldly talent on these forums though. Players that can excel quickly in a great variety of titles. I think effort goes a long way, and with enough effort even an untalented player like myself could reach the top of a title I loved, but don't kid yourself, talent exists. If effort separates the good from the great, talent (with great effort) separates the great from the pros.

[copy-paster]

I barely consistent at danmaku genre tbh, only danmaku game I got cleared was DonPachi US ver and Batsugun Special 1-ALL.

[6t8k]

Interesting topic, there's not much I can add (Jeneki for best post!).

There's also the aspect of "talent", which can be a hot subject for understandable reasons. This would determine how quickly you get better per time investment¹, disregarding getting rusty due to downtime.
It's my conviction that such a thing exists and can play a role, but that role is easily overestimated because

1) it's relevant only for lower-level play, its effect quickly becoming less important the more advanced your gameplay, where practice prevails
2) can be confused with the way (i.e., how efficient) you train. It's at the very least debatable if that is talent also - although the effect is basically the same - the terminology certainly doesn't give it away. Talent (as in aptitude) you wouldn't be able to change, whereas you can change your way of training, obviously. You could probably say that there can be talent for adopting efficient ways of learning/training, however.

Credit to Mark_MSX who actually wrote an article about this which I largely agree on.


¹

Spoiler

Just for fun, maybe roughly something like this:


(t=training time, T=talent, z is just some "zoom factor", the value of which doesn't really matter as long as it's above 0, since the scales are ideal anyway)

Visualizations: [1] [2] [3]

[Gamer707b]

I'll chime in and say that certain people are naturally better at certain things. You and I can practice the same thing for the same exact time, the same exact way. At the end of it you may be much better at said thing. I may need to practice drawing or painting for months, but someone else comes along that has little or no experience just picks up a brush and draws the most beautiful painting. While most of us can get good at shmups,
( I know my skills have greatly improved ) there's some people that have that natural ability with these games that are out of this world. That's my opinion.

[ratikal]

Player A suicides for bombs as much as possible, chains excellently, near to WR scoring. Player B decides to ignore scoring and drive the rank up for a no-miss run. Which player is more skilled?

Player A because he knows how to play the game.

I fail to see how a player who can dodge patterns at highest rank doesn't also know how to play the game. And I'm going to assume you don't know how to explain it yourself, considering you didn't make an attempt.

Player B knows how to dodge and plan bombs. Player A knows how to exploit the various mechanics of Battle Bakraid, knowing when to suicide and where and at what time. Not to mention all the other nuances I'm probably missing. That can take a considerably longer time to learn.

[Some-Mist]

Player A suicides for bombs as much as possible, chains excellently, near to WR scoring. Player B decides to ignore scoring and drive the rank up for a no-miss run. Which player is more skilled?

Player A because he knows how to play the game.

I fail to see how a player who can dodge patterns at highest rank doesn't also know how to play the game. And I'm going to assume you don't know how to explain it yourself, considering you didn't make an attempt.

Player A drives the rank up for a no-miss run. Player B drives the rank up for a no-miss run.
How would you determine who the better player is?

Spoiler

I also have a few questions about the original scenario since I don't know battle bakraid well:
does scoring well (by chaining) and suiciding to use more bombs not increase the rank just as much as no-missing?
can no-missing generate better scoring opportunities than suiciding to bomb spam? If so wouldn't the player going for score go for the no-miss as well?

if we used an example like progear where a no-miss helps generate a higher score: who would be the better player? the one who goes for score and no-miss or the player who just goes for the no-miss?

[awbacon]

Nothing makes me feel WORSE at shmups than watching any of the 1CC videos on YT lol

[zlk]

There is an easy test to gauge how good you are as a shmup player. The test is simple and divides shmup players into two distinct categories:

Those than can kill inbachi on one credit in SDOJ in an arcade in front of an audience. We call those people good players.

The people that can't kill inbachi on one credit in an arcade in front of an audience are called people who need to improve their skills.

It really is that simple.

[Licorice]

A lot of time you'll read players here say of a game "oh it's good, but a shame that it's too easy".

Well, when you are shit at shmups, it's just good.

So that's the upside to still being a beginner.

[glide]

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm shit at shmups.

[FRO]

If you can 1cc a shmup you are a good player in my book, definitely in the top percentile of players, even simple clears really do take more effort than casual players could stomach.

Great skill is measured in score though, and I'm saying that as someone who is satisfied with survival in 99% of what I play. In the one game I would consider myself "great" at I learned to No-miss long long before I got top tier scores. Score > No-Miss > Survival

I do think there seem to be players with particularly otherworldly talent on these forums though. Players that can excel quickly in a great variety of titles. I think effort goes a long way, and with enough effort even an untalented player like myself could reach the top of a title I loved, but don't kid yourself, talent exists. If effort separates the good from the great, talent (with great effort) separates the great from the pros.

I think this is a good general rule. However, blossom and Plasmo have sparked an interesting thought about Bakraid, and similar games. I'm wondering if one can objectively say Player A in that scenario, who has figured out/learned how to play the game according to the developer's vision, is the better player. I think a case could be made that Player B, by ignoring the strategic advantage of suiciding and bombing, and playing at max rank the whole time, means that they would have to learn the game in its hardest form. I'm not saying Player B is better, but I am saying it's worth considering. It makes me think of situations where someone has mastered a game, and then challenges themselves to playing it in some handicapped form, such as using the default weapon, and using no power-ups, playing at a slower speed (no speed adjustment, only using the default), etc. That player isn't utilizing the tools provided, and making the game even harder than it normally would be. Not every example fits every game, obviously, but it's interesting to think about.

[ACSeraph]

^Does such a player even exist though? My guess is anyone who would play a Yagawa shmup like that probably already understands and has mastered proper score play, and as you say is looking for additional challenge. So they would already qualify as a "great" player before ever pursuing no miss gameplay.

[DDDP]

Score.

It is the great equalizer, and since this isn't a team-based or vs-based genre, it removes most of the excuses that players typically fall back to.

Someone can make arbitrary, exotic claims about how no-missing or maxing out rank is "more difficult", but then we're arguing over subjective opinion. Hey, I can no miss DDP while also only killing enemies with blue on their sprite while also moving left twice as often as I move to the right while also posting about it on a videogame forum. Bow before my skill.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

Player A suicides for bombs as much as possible, chains excellently, near to WR scoring. Player B decides to ignore scoring and drive the rank up for a no-miss run. Which player is more skilled?

Player A because he knows how to play the game.

this doesn't make any sense. they both know how to play the game but are taking different approaches.
I don't think that you've necessarily chosen incorrectly (i hold no stance either way), but i think the reasoning is questionable.

Score is meant for competitive play, while doing a no miss run that ignores score is not, so bothering to gauge who is better seems pointless.

[Blinge]

One allows you to directly measure who did better at the game.

Who is better in a competition? The player who wins it.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

One allows you to directly measure who did better at the game.

Who is better in a competition? The player who wins it.

that's why it would be pointless to gauge the two, since one style of play is within the competitive realm, while the other is not. They're for entirely different purposes.
Some games are even lousy to play for score, like for example, saint dragon. i somehow got 19.2mil in my run of it despite not intending to play it for score. My run lacked some interesting skills that lower scoring players were able to pull off, such as landing the safe spot on the final boss, which was too hard for me to do in a run

[XoPachi]

So I totally forgot I made this thread. c:

Personally, I firmly believe in talent which was mentioned earlier. I don't think it means it instantly makes you good, but like...it's sort of like personalities in Dragon Quest 3. A mage isn't instantly strong just because they're a Genius, but rather they have an aptitude for gaining a massively high wisdom stat much faster than others when they grind. I've seen people in the past who, yes, start from scratch but with the same amount of mileage put in, triple my skill output for seemingly no other reason.

(Also, don't be dense. You know which game I mean by "DoDonPachi 5". Which else is the fifth release in the series?)

[Blinge]

One allows you to directly measure who did better at the game.

Who is better in a competition? The player who wins it.

that's why it would be pointless to gauge the two, since one style of play is within the competitive realm, while the other is not. They're for entirely different purposes.
Some games are even lousy to play for score, like for example, saint dragon. i somehow got 19.2mil in my run of it despite not intending to play it for score. My run lacked some interesting skills that lower scoring players were able to pull off, such as landing the safe spot on the final boss, which was too hard for me to do in a run

Sorry, you want to measure who is the better player? Then consider using the mechanic thats sole purpose is to measure who's better..

If you have a better idea, then by all means tell us.

[6t8k]

^ Another example where score alone would not be an adequate metric for skill would be BareKnuckleRoo's Giga Wing no-reflect clear. An acrobatic feat, but how would someone not knowing the game/just seeing the score know how difficult that was (he even said himself that he can't properly score playing the game in this way)?

I played SSB Brawl's Home Run Contest mode competetively for a few years, and there's a bouquet of subcategories for scoring, like NBA (no bat allowed) or NSA (no shield allowed, shield = the barrier preventing the sandbag from flying away prematurely), all of which score way lower on average. For these scores to make sense, you always have to know the constraints under which they were achieved (then they're comparable again). The thresholds are blurred: some "subcategories" might be trivial and intended by the game, e.g. choosing between different characters/ships, but some might be self-invented, like the above, or Garegga no-miss.

If I had an accident and thereby one finger less, making everything harder, I may be able to convince a few fellows to found shmup-paralympics! Or maybe, the weather was too warm, impeding my ability to concentrate, what then? The point being, you can continue this thought ad infinitum down to the tiniest details, in theory all sorts of stuff can play a role.

Also there are many examples for (at least seemingly/until the causes are known) random behavor influencing score, like midbosses not showing up in Thunder Force III or some foes showing partly random behavior in DDP. Or for Home Run Contest, Peach pulling a bomb or not.

I'd say score is a (very common!) metric, not the metric. There are things beyond what can be reliably, meaningfully or economically measured. However, any single measurement has to be seen in relation to other measurements, otherwise it's meaningless. This is of course, to say the least, much harder to do in any objectively conveyable way when you take BrainΦΠΦTemple's perspective. Sometimes you have to be initiated in order to meaningfully being able to compare two performances, let alone carrying that out in an objectively traceable manner.

For us, score is the de facto metric in 99.9% of all cases because it makes much sense to use it.

(Also, don't be dense. You know which game I mean by "DoDonPachi 5". Which else is the fifth release in the series?)

To thegreathopper's defense, there are four arcade games whose names begin with "DoDonPachi" (five only if you count non-Cave DoDonPachi II: Bee Storm).
Or, already assuming the latter, depending on whether one considers DonPachi to be part of the series (which could be plausible), is the fifth game DFK or SDOJ?
But yes, that's awfully meticulous at this point and I certainly don't care for the nomenclature this much (also I can imagine because you said 'hardest game ever')