Gauging How Good You Actually Are?

[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

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.

rofl xP
I don't have a better means of gauging because a better means is not what i've been proposing here. I'm saying that it is a waste of time to decide who is better since these are both skilled players playing for different reasons.

let's expand this idea beyond shmups, to some arcade run 'n gunner, platformer, or beat 'em up since those don't auto scroll. who would the better player be, the WR speed runner or the WR hi-score keeper? why bother comparing them if they're playing for different purposes? both people know different ways on how to play the game professionally.

I'd say score is a (very common!) metric, not the metric.

i like this lol

[ACSeraph]

let's expand this idea beyond shmups, to some arcade run 'n gunner, platformer, or beat 'em up since those don't auto scroll. who would the better player be, the WR speed runner or the WR hi-score keeper? why bother comparing them if they're playing for different purposes? both people know different ways on how to play the game professionally.

As the topic is "gauging how good you are" you need some kind of measurable comparison to other players. I can definitely accept that some people might be playing with a different ruleset making comparisons of the runs incompatible, in the Score/Survival/Speed categories etc. But you still need a distinct score within your category to gauge how good you are relative to other players. Obviously that number would be the built in score counter for score play, in speed running your time is your score, but what about No-miss Survival? I would argue that if you were to compete in a specific no-miss category (In Bakraid for example) your relative skill would still have to be measured in score. If two players no-miss, then the higher scoring player (within the category) would still be "better".

I guess my point is no matter what original subcategories you come up with, ultimately "score" is what will determine who is the best player.

Also you use the word "professionally", but I think that there needs to be an actual competative community to make that kind of claim. There is no Battle Bakraid no-miss subcategory community of players that I know of, so of course high level players of the large orthodox scoring community would scoff at the one single guy playing with his own ruleset calling himself professional, impressive as the feat may be. That's like being a professional Street Fighter player in the "throwing is cheap so no throws" subcategory.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

let's expand this idea beyond shmups, to some arcade run 'n gunner, platformer, or beat 'em up since those don't auto scroll. who would the better player be, the WR speed runner or the WR hi-score keeper? why bother comparing them if they're playing for different purposes? both people know different ways on how to play the game professionally.

As the topic is "guaging how good you are" you need some kind of measurable comparison to other players. I can definitely accept that some people might be playing with a different ruleset making comparisons of the runs incompatible, in the Score/Survival/Speed categories etc. But you still need a distinct score within your category to guage how good you are relative to other players. Obviously that number would be the built in score counter for score play, in speed running your time is your score, but what about No-miss Survival? I would argue that if you were to compete in a specific no-miss category (In Bakraid for example) your relative skill would still have to be measured in score. If two players no-miss, then the higher scoring player (within the category) would still be "better".

I guess my point is no matter what original subcategories you come up with, ultimately "score" is what will determine who is the best player.

Also you use the word "professionally", but I think that there needs to be an actual competative community to make that kind of claim. There is no Battle Bakraid no-miss subcategory community of players that I know of, so of course high level players of the large orthodox scoring community would scoff at the one single guy playing with his own ruleset calling himself professional, impressive as the feat may be. That's like being a professional Street Fighter player in the "throwing is cheap so no throws" subcategory.

Score play should be measured with score players.
Generally, this idea of "who is better" is fundamentally pointless when players in different categories are being measured, and so "who is better" is really only context dependent. if there was a challenge to get a no miss and score was irrelevant, then the winning players within the challenge would be who achieved a no miss regardless of their score.

yAp, I do use the word "professionally," but i am using it in regards to two professional modes of play for a video game in that scenario: speed runner and score player. so i dunno what's wrong with me using that. =o

As I've said before, some games are even bad to play for score, and saint dragon is a terrible game for it, since the last stage is a huge luck gamble. It's not a good measure in that game, and I feel that the players who got a lower score than I did were able to pull off many interesting skills that I wasn't able to do in a run. So for me to say i'm a better saint dragon player than these lower scoring players isn't really so clear cut. Since I wasn't even intending to play the game for score, I don't care to have my run compared in score since my run was not competitive.

Also, i don't really think that getting a no miss that ignores score is "playing by your own rules." you're just going through the game not concerned about score. you don't always have to play competitively.
I think you can even be a pro by doing non-competitive runs anyway. 6t8k brought up BKRoo's giga wing no reflect 1cc which takes a huge amount of skill, so for someone to scoff at it being seen as a pro play because it isn't a hi-score run seems pretty silly and one dimensional to me.
To drive it back to your fighting game example, the other player could agree to the "no throwing" conditions and still win because he's more skilled at the game.

[ACSeraph]

I don't think we really disagree so much, I'm totally with you that it's pointless to compare score runs versus no-miss ignoring score runs, but again when gauging how good you are you would need to consider no-miss as a subcategory, and you would still need to reference score to compare runs within that subcategory.

Example 1: player A sucides his way to a score of 10,000, while player B maximizes rank and no-misses with a score of 5,000. These aren't comparable categories so you cannot really claim who is better. These players are not competing.

Example 2: Player A no-misses with a score of 5,000. Player B no-misses with a score of 5,500. Player B is better, even if the subcategory ignores score. Ultimately these runs are comparable whether the players intended it or not, and the benchmark would still be score.

This would definitely apply to other categories such as no reflect gigawing. I would argue this logic could even be applied to the likely non-existent scenario where two speed runs posted the exact same time in an arcade game. The higher scoring run should be considered superior.

Regarding "professional", score play and speed running are both accepted methods or pro level play so it's fine there. My point is more specific to the early Bakraid example. It would be laughable to claim you are a pro player in a subcategory that doesn't actually have any other competition. Pro really suggests that competative play is occuring, if not it would be better to refer to this as expert level play or something. Professional is a bit of a loaded term in this case.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

I don't think we really disagree so much, I'm totally with you that it's pointless to compare score runs versus no-miss ignoring score runs, but again when gauging how good you are you would need to consider no-miss as a subcategory, and you would still need to reference score to compare runs within that subcategory.

Example 1: player A sucides his way to a score of 10,000, while player B maximizes rank and no-misses with a score of 5,000. These aren't comparable categories so you cannot really claim who is better. These players are not competing.

Example 2: Player A no-misses with a score of 5,000. Player B no-misses with a score of 5,500. Player B is better, even if the subcategory ignores score. Ultimately these runs are comparable whether the players intended it or not, and the benchmark would still be score.

Regarding "professional", score play and speed running are both accepted methods or pro level play so it's fine there. My point is more specific to the early Bakraid example. It would be laughable to claim you are a pro player in a subcategory that doesn't actually have any other competition. Pro really suggests that competative play is occuring, if not it would be better to refer to this as expert level play or something. Professional is a bit of a loaded term in this case.

This would definitely apply to other categories such as no reflect gigawing. I would argue this logic could even be applied to the likely non-existent scenario where two speed runs posted the exact same time in an arcade game. The higher scoring run should be considered superior.

"Expert" and "professional" both seem like interchangeable synonyms in this context and makes no difference to me, but if "pro" bugs you and you'd rather switch to "expert" then that's fine ^^

anyway, I'm confused by the second example lol
why would player A not play his intended way if he's supposed to be doin' suicides and all that jazz to crank up his score? x~X

[ACSeraph]

anyway, I'm confused by the second example lol
why would player A not play his intended way if he's supposed to be doin' suicides and all that jazz to crank up his score? x~X

Because to qualify for the no-miss subcategory you have to well, no-miss. It means basically that players in the category would have to develop completely new methods to increase score that don't involve suiciding.

---

While we are on this topic why don't I share with you a very specific example that illustrates my points about unorthodox subcategories.

I have been out of the game for a few years, but I used to play Caladrius at a "professional" level. There are two accepted subcategories for this game: custom and default. Custom let's you mix and match shot types from a number of different characters. In Caladrius certain shot types score better than others, so by customizing your shot types in a specific way you can reach a much higher score ceiling than default players can. For this reason the scores of the two categories are not comparable at pro level play.

Custom is the most popular category, because it's both easier to get into for a beginner and also has a higher score ceiling for pro level play, however I prefer the default subcategory because I find custom to be extremely rigid; everyone uses the same shot types (specifically Kei-3) at the pro level.

As far as anyone could tell based on communication with other players and leaderboard information I held the default world record for many years in both the original 360 release and Blaze Evolution on PS3. That said, I long expected my record to be beaten by a player using a different character (the character that has shot type kei-3 by default) and indeed my score was defeated by our very own aquas in an absolutely beautiful run using the character in question. Aquas is now the best player (that I know of) in the default subcategory. Should I claim I am better because I didn't use that character? I still hold the highest scores ever achieved without Kei-3, should I start making a no-kei 3 subcategory and claiming I'm the best there is? Hell no. Aquas is a better player than I am.

Like the theoretical no-miss Bakraid player, my play is impressive and unique, but Aquas is better. Score doesn't lie. And I bet you the no-miss Bakraid player would agree with me on that.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

anyway, I'm confused by the second example lol
why would player A not play his intended way if he's supposed to be doin' suicides and all that jazz to crank up his score? x~X

Because to qualify for the no-miss subcategory you have to well, no-miss. It means basically that players in the category would have to develop completely new methods to increase score that don't involve suiciding.

---

While we are on this topic why don't I share with you a very specific example that illustrates my points about unorthodox subcategories.

I have been out of the game for a few years, but I used to play Caladrius at a "professional" level. There are two accepted subcategories for this game: custom and default. Custom let's you mix and match shot types from a number of different characters. In Caladrius certain shot types score better than others, so by customizing your shot types in a specific way you can reach a much higher score ceiling than default players can. For this reason the scores of the two categories are not comparable at pro level play.

Custom is the most popular category, because it's both easier to get into for a beginner and also has a higher score ceiling for pro level play, however I prefer the default subcategory because I find custom to be extremely rigid; everyone uses the same shot types (specifically Kei-3) at the pro level.

As far as anyone could tell based on communication with other players and leaderboard information I held the default world record for many years in both the original 360 release and Blaze Evolution on PS3. That said, I long expected my record to be beaten by a player using a different character (the character that has shot type kei-3 by default) and indeed my score was defeated by our very own aquas in an absolutely beautiful run using the character in question. Aquas is now the best player (that I know of) in the default subcategory. Should I claim I am better because I didn't use that character? I still hold the highest scores ever achieved without Kei-3, should I start making a no-kei 3 subcategory and claiming I'm the best there is? Hell no. Aquas is a better player than I am.

Like the theoretical no-miss Bakraid player, my play is impressive and unique, but Aquas is better. Score doesn't lie. And I bet you the no-miss Bakraid player would agree with me on that.

Oh, I wasn't aware that player A was deliberately going for a no miss as well. I didn't realize that was specified as a new condition for player A.

Also, in regards to your example, i'm not saying that subcategories should be made to determine who is a better player, so again i'm confused lol
I think making comparisons is a complete waste of time unless it is directly for competition, which you agree with me on, so what was the point of that rofl
i must be missing somethin'

good job to both you and aquas though lol

[Blinge]

Also, in regards to your example, i'm not saying that subcategories should be made to determine who is a better player, so again i'm confused lol
I think making comparisons is a complete waste of time unless it is directly for competition, which you agree with me on, so what was the point of that rofl
i must be missing somethin'

Well that's all the proof i need that this thread is straight retarded. It's no wonder the godtier players stopped replying.
Are you just yammering on for the sake of it?

It depends on what the community wants. To use your Saint Dragon example, though I suspect no one cares who is the better player at Saint Dragon..
If there's a big bunch of Saint Dragon players who care enough to want to determine the best player, they either use score or agree on something that works better for them.

Not sure why this warrants argument.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

Also, in regards to your example, i'm not saying that subcategories should be made to determine who is a better player, so again i'm confused lol
I think making comparisons is a complete waste of time unless it is directly for competition, which you agree with me on, so what was the point of that rofl
i must be missing somethin'

Well that's all the proof i need that this thread is straight retarded. It's no wonder the godtier players stopped replying.
Are you just yammering on for the sake of it?

It depends on what the community wants. To use your Saint Dragon example, though I suspect no one cares who is the better player at Saint Dragon..
If there's a big bunch of Saint Dragon players who care enough to want to determine the best player, they either use score or agree on something that works better for them.

Not sure why this warrants argument.

ya, i don't care who is better at saint dragon either, so like, idk why you tried makin' a dig there lol
dunno what your deal is, but imma give you a big gamer hug.
Sorry if you find me annoying or retarded or w/e (I wholeheartedly confess that I can be an airhead sometimes when people try to explain something to me, so I do what I can to understand and even stated that i must be missing something to his reasoning for bringing it up) but I legit just didn't understand and was hoping that ACSeraph could clarify because I already find this thread to be pointless due to gauging something like this to revolve around context dependency/conditions but agree with the general consensus of score's adequacy of measurement being the general metric in terms of competitive play.

If i'm being a rude asshole to anyone here, i apologize

[Blinge]

Less is more when it comes to writing responses about this topic, I feel.

I've wasted precious seconds re-skimming this page to better understand what you were saying.
So you think comparing two different types of play or gauging who is a better player is pointless?

ok.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

Less is more when it comes to writing responses about this topic, I feel.

I've wasted precious seconds re-skimming this page to better understand what you were saying.
So you think comparing two different types of play or gauging who is a better player is pointless?

ok.

thought that was pretty concise in my first post:

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.

anyway, glad that you understand my position now

[ACSeraph]

It's really simple. If you don't compete in an accepted category with some form of score then you have forfeited your right to claim you are "good" relative to other players. Ultimately it doesn't matter if the scores are equally comparable or not, the person who won via the rules of the category is the best player regardless of strategy, character choice, or underhanded tactics. Anyone claiming "I'm the best but I only play in my own made up no-miss category" is a scrub. This thread is about comparison, if you aren't interested why post? I do think the grey areas are interesting personally, but it's like Blinge said earlier, the player who wins is the best player period.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

It's really simple. If you don't compete in an accepted category with some form of score then you have forfeited your right to claim you are "good" relative to other players. Ultimately it doesn't matter if the scores are equally comparable or not, the person who won via the rules of the category is the best player regardless of strategy, character choice, or underhanded tactics. Anyone claiming "I'm the best but I only play in my own made up no-miss category" is a scrub. This thread is about comparison, if you aren't interested why post? I do think the grey areas are interesting personally, but it's like Blinge said earlier, the player who wins is the best player period.

no miss isn't a made up category, really, at least i don't think. it's an element that many games encourage.
I know in my case I have no interest to compare myself and say that i'm "good" relative to other players. To me, that's not the fun of superplays, although I understand the appeal. I prefer learning the game for a no miss run, and i personally think anyone would be exhibiting scrub behavior by being deliberately obnoxious, regardless of their skill level.

Also, we shared a relatively similar view here:

Ultimately it doesn't matter if the scores are equally comparable or not, the person who won via the rules of the category is the best player regardless of strategy, character choice, or underhanded tactics

Generally, this idea of "who is better" is fundamentally pointless when players in different categories are being measured, and so "who is better" is really only context dependent. if there was a challenge to get a no miss and score was irrelevant, then the winning players within the challenge would be who achieved a no miss regardless of their score.

Anyway, the reason I'm posting is because I believe it is flawed to analyze who is better in competitive play with non-competitive play, since non-competitive play isn't about being better than someone already.
So it seems like a pointless endeavor.

[Blinge]

anyway, glad that you understand my position now

Just don't understand why you'd bother writing it.

So considering the point of the thread is to give Xopachi a metric by which he can measure himself as a player generally across arcade games.. I think..
This is potentially a fool's endeavour but, I guess you could rack up harder and harder clears then pick a game you like and try to reach higher scoring ranks in that.
Various little measurements.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

anyway, glad that you understand my position now

Just don't understand why you'd bother writing it.

Anyway, the reason I'm posting is because I believe it is flawed to analyze who is better in competitive play with non-competitive play, since non-competitive play isn't about being better than someone already.
So it seems like a pointless endeavor.

hope that helps explain why :>

[Blinge]

How do you determine who's the better player between two non-competitive players then.

fucking hell. who really gives a shit.
In what situation would anyone ever be trying to argue that X "no miss player" is better than Y score player.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

How do you determine who's the better player between two non-competitive players then.

fucking hell. who really gives a shit.
In what situation would anyone ever be trying to argue that X "no miss player" is better than Y score player.

hahahaha ya exactly =D

heCk, when doing no damage runs of games that don't have score 'n stuff, trying to gauge who is better can get even more blurred x~x

[Blinge]

hate to piss on your chips bud but the word order was kind of important in my last post.

In a quick, conversational moment saying who's better between said two players. Common sense says " probably the score player. "
The other point is: when are people ever actually gonna compare them in the wild?

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

hate to piss on your chips bud but the word order was kind of important in my last post.

In a quick, conversational moment saying who's better between said two players. Common sense says " probably the score player. "
The other point is: when are people ever actually gonna compare them in the wild?

by making a choice with a non-competitive run who did better, I think it misses the point entirely. you yourself just even said that measuring yourself across arcade games would potentially be a fool's endeavor...

i brought up no damage runs too of games that don't have score measurements, as gauging two mega man x no damage runs would be more difficult for determining who the more proficient player would be, but in the context of a standard no damage clear, both are equally successfully achieved, and in that sense, it doesn't matter. they both underwent the challenge, which is what actually matters.
That's what non-competitive play is about, I think.

mega man x no damage run feels really dang rad to do btw. that and an r-type II no miss 2-ALL of the JPN version have probably been my favorite things to do so far =o

[ACSeraph]

The other point is: when are people ever actually gonna compare them in the wild?

Kids watching let's plays of games they don't understand on YouTube

i brought up no damage runs too of games that don't have score measurements, as gauging two mega man x no damage runs would be more difficult for determining who the more proficient player would be, but in the context of a standard no damage clear, both are equally successfully achieved, and in that sense, it doesn't matter.

The player with the faster time is better.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

i brought up no damage runs too of games that don't have score measurements, as gauging two mega man x no damage runs would be more difficult for determining who the more proficient player would be, but in the context of a standard no damage clear, both are equally successfully achieved, and in that sense, it doesn't matter.

The player with the faster time is better.

That's debatable too since a no damage run isn't a speed run and may incorporate some speed run strats, but ultimately the goal is no damage and too play cautiously. if a tactic takes longer to do, but is more safe, then that's what you would employ in a no damage run.
a different mode of thinking, so i don't think the quickest run will determine that unless you want to assess that on an abstraction that's irrelevant to the run.

[Blinge]

I vote we make Galaxy Brain over here the foremost authority on determining player skill for all gamerkind.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

I vote we make Galaxy Brain over here the foremost authority on determining player skill for all gamerkind.

i know you are being sarcastic, but i'll take it as a friendly compliment, so taHnk you for that nice thing you said :]

[ACSeraph]

Don't worry I'm not so serious about it, the point is simply that you can gauge who is better if you really want to, and gauging is what this thread is ultimately about

Real talk time: If you set a challenging goal for yourself and you work hard and ultimately meet that goal you are a good player in my book no matter how small the goal is compared to high level competitive play. Be proud. But if you are left feeling like your accomplishments maybe don't really amount to much like the TC suggested, then strap yourself in for some competitive play and prove your worth in killing fields.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

Don't worry I'm not so serious about it, the point is simply that you can gauge who is better if you really want to, and gauging is what this thread is ultimately about

oh, you don't gotta worry either since i also don't take myself too seriously lol
I just don't agree with that evaluation and think there's a much wider gray area to skill that the competitive scene can often overlook as non-competitive play is a bit more obscure.

Real talk time: If you set a challenging goal for yourself and you work hard and ultimately meet that goal you are a good player in my book no matter how small the goal is compared to high level competitive play. Be proud. But if you are left feeling like your accomplishments maybe don't really amount to much like the TC suggested, then strap yourself in for some competitive play and prove your worth in killing fields.

i don't need to prove my worth with video games. i just want to have fun with them lol

[6t8k]

I'd say score is a (very common!) metric, not the metric.

After a little more thinking, supporting ACSeraph's argument, I'd like to supplement that statement with the more exact remark that, if the goal is to objectively fathom skill (which competitive players will want to do), then score¹ is, in fact, the only possible way to do so. It's a tautology, since it's a necessary (not sufficient!) condition for your approach to quantify a real-world phenomenon if selfsame ought to be understood objectively.² A basic element of the scientific method. Again this is not to say there don't exist phenomena beyond that, in fact, there are plenty.

¹ as a proxy term to any "in-game" or "real-world" dimension within which measurements are taken (shmups: points or distance or survival time between a difficult pattern, speedruns: time, HRC: distance, which is basically the same as points - or even some eccentric stuff like the number of button presses until a specific goal is reached). If that choice of dimension under given constraints/subcategory is a meaningful representative of skill is a completely different question, which people wanting to be able to compare their skill (communities, basically) have to answer themselves, unconsciously or deliberately, hence measurement in itself is not sufficient.

² Even though deliberations about universal objectivity are destined to collapse, as Plato has indicated with his allegory of the cave, Einstein has shown for the macrophysical, Heisenberg at the latest for the quantum-physical and Gödel even has proven on a logical level. Though of course in everyday life, there's (most of the time) enough mutual agreement that we can understand each other (see ¹).

*wheeze*

Well that's all the proof i need that this thread is straight retarded. It's no wonder the godtier players stopped replying.

Qui tacet, consentire videtur.

[chum]

Forgive me for bringing some autism into the discussion, but here's my 2 cents.

How "good" you are can be divided into many different categories, most of which cannot be measured.
The big ones are:
1. How accomplished you are in general, as a shmup player. Cannot be measured, but you can have a rough idea.

2. How accomplished you are at a specific game. Can be measured relative to other players by using score.

1. How skilled you are in general, as a shmup player. Cannot be measured but you can have a rough idea.

2. How skilled you are at a specific game. This cannot be measured but you can have a fairly good idea if there's a good enough sample pool.

So the big point is that there's a difference between skill and your accomplishments. Some extremely good players are lazy or just don't care, and never get good accomplishments. Some players never manage to reach the amount of skill you normally associate with superplayers, but they can still find ways to make up for it with sheer effort, and gain some highly regarded accomplishments. Saying one of them is better than the other in that case is a matter of semantics.

Furthermore, skill can be divided into many little subcategories, some of which can be measured, such as reaction speed, or gauged fairly well by observing the players general behaviour in different kinds of games, such as by using patterns based on RNG (like what is often used in Touhou games). Testing players reading ability and the precision of their movements (both micro and macro) is a good way to gauge skill, but it must still be stressed, that nothing about it is objectively measured. People with similar skill might perform differently at different kinds of patterns. Plus, skill at STG isn't just about pattern reading and dodging, and also not just about memorization and routing, or how quickly you learn and figure things out. there is no one category of skill that will by itself make you a highly skilled player, but rather, a combination of attributes. All of that is why referring to accomplishments is the most proper and objective way to gauge how good you are. Talking about how skilled players are in general is more of a difficult thing to observe. It is observed based on how they perform consistently (and in a variety of different situations) rather by just observing their highest scoring run in whatever game.

There are many flaws when using score as the be-all-end-all skill gauge. It's not just that the more skilled player in general might have a lower score in a specific game, but it could also be the case that the lower scoring player is more skilled in that specific game, as well. This is because of luck. Let's say that to reach a certain score in a game, you need to get a luck that happens 1 in 500 times. Player A has 2% consistency rate at reaching their goal when not accounting for luck, but their score luck is only 1 in 50. Player B has only 0.5% consistency, but their score luck is 1 in 500, so despite being the worse player at the game, they got the higher score (whether they got luckier in fewer attempts or put in much more effort is kind of irrelevant, because player A got the more consistent results through better playing, something that can be measured objectively). In that case I would say that Player A is the better player, but obviously Player B got the better accomplishment. However, the counterpoint to that is that Player B might have worse consistency, but also play better at their best, for some reason. In the end, there is no good answer but the best one imo is who is better at a specific game by using score as the metric.

[Blinge]

Well that's all the proof i need that this thread is straight retarded. It's no wonder the godtier players stopped replying.

Qui tacet, consentire videtur.

not really.

irrumabo

[davyK]

I'm bumping this because it's something that interests me and I think could add some fun to playing these game for those of us who are lower tier.

Imagine there is a scheme whereby players are classified - imagine something like:

* the belt colour scheme in martial arts,
* master grandmaster status that chess players have or
* the "dan" system that go players use

There's even a grandmaster of tetris - proscribed by the TGM series of games.

Does anyone think it would be fun for a scheme to exist for shooting game players? Imagine a scale of grades - and you would have to achieve certain things (and provide proof) in order to progress.

The barrier to progression class for example could be gaining 1CCs in a number of games out of a selection. The selection of games would be picked by people here based on their agreed difficulty. I've already seen a ranked list of games. So - there already seem to be certain games that are considered "easy" 1CCs by people here - so say there are 20 of those - imagine being able to be graded category "C" by 1CCing any 5 or 6 of them?

To progress to "B" you might need to do all of the "C" games and then a choice out of a set of "B" category games....and so on.

A scheme of 3 or 4 grades could easily be created with the highest "A" or "A*" being achieved by getting a prescribed set of 2-ALLs or breaking certain score barriers in others. Maybe counterstopping certain modes.

WR holders are in a class of their own of course.

That would provide a classification scheme but for comparing people at the same category I don't think grading is valid - the only true way of doing that is tournament play with ranking points or a ladder system. We all have thoughts on how that can be done but for me? The only real way of doing that doing the business at a pre-agreed time (and maybe even place). There are ways of doing it using streaming of course - I've watched some "versus" side-by-side streams of shmups at stunfest and the recent Cave marathon. There's no reason why a valid competition couldn't be done virtually as no synching or ping rates affect that type of thing.

Anyone think such a grading scheme is a good idea? I'd like one to exist but I wouldn't have the experience and knowledge to specify one.

I've recently started to get some 1CCs and it would be good to get some direction on which ones to go for - would provide some level of motivation - and cause for celebration too of course.

[pegboy]

I'm bumping this because it's something that interests me and I think could add some fun to playing these game for those of us who are lower tier.

Imagine there is a scheme whereby players are classified - imagine something like:

* the belt colour scheme in martial arts,
* master grandmaster status that chess players have or
* the "dan" system that go players use

There's even a grandmaster of tetris - proscribed by the TGM series of games.

Does anyone think it would be fun for a scheme to exist for shooting game players? Imagine a scale of grades - and you would have to achieve certain things (and provide proof) in order to progress.

The barrier to progression class for example could be gaining 1CCs in a number of games out of a selection. The selection of games would be picked by people here based on their agreed difficulty. I've already seen a ranked list of games. So - there already seem to be certain games that are considered "easy" 1CCs by people here - so say there are 20 of those - imagine being able to be graded category "C" by 1CCing any 5 or 6 of them?

To progress to "B" you might need to do all of the "C" games and then a choice out of a set of "B" category games....and so on.

A scheme of 3 or 4 grades could easily be created with the highest "A" or "A*" being achieved by getting a prescribed set of 2-ALLs or breaking certain score barriers in others. Maybe counterstopping certain modes.

WR holders are in a class of their own of course.

That would provide a classification scheme but for comparing people at the same category I don't think grading is valid - the only true way of doing that is tournament play with ranking points or a ladder system. We all have thoughts on how that can be done but for me? The only real way of doing that doing the business at a pre-agreed time (and maybe even place). There are ways of doing it using streaming of course - I've watched some "versus" side-by-side streams of shmups at stunfest and the recent Cave marathon. There's no reason why a valid competition couldn't be done virtually as no synching or ping rates affect that type of thing.

Anyone think such a grading scheme is a good idea? I'd like one to exist but I wouldn't have the experience and knowledge to specify one.

I've recently started to get some 1CCs and it would be good to get some direction on which ones to go for - would provide some level of motivation - and cause for celebration too of course.

I think it's a fun idea, and would make for an interesting discussion. Also, you'd probably get more visibility on this if you made a new thread under shmups chat, as this one is in the off-topic section for some reason.