A scheme for grades aka Are you a Black Belt shmup player?

[davyK]

I bumped a thread in the Off Topic section about measuring skill. I think it's better discussed in this area though...

This has been discussed before but I think this is a take on the subject that suggests something quite feasible - player grading.

Imagine there is a scheme whereby players are classified - consider :

* 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 for a particular class could , for example, be gaining 1CCs in a number of games out of an agreed 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 could be annotated in your grade - e.g. a person graded at A* (3) could hold 3 recognised WRs perhaps.

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. And I think this would be an enjoyable way of doing it.

[BulletMagnet]

A fun idea in theory, though the amount and/or intensity of back-and-forth in the offing to determine which games/accomplishments "count" within it makes me want to crawl right back into bed and hide under the covers, heh.

Which, incidentally, would earn me a Flannel Belt.

[davyK]

Would be a lot of work - no doubt that that.

And I'm sure there would be a lot of arguments - but a starting point is the graded list of games which I think might already have had a fair level of agreement in a thread here. And if a grading scheme groups games then that might make it easier to create groups of games that could be mapped onto grades.

I'd be happy to facilitate and/or administer something like this (it could warrant its own site as a forum isn't the best way of doing certain tasks. It should start here in a thread but if it got any traction it would probably be best being in a separate sub-domain - shmups.grades.org - for example. Close affiliation with here would be necessary for its validity and survival but I'd need input from superior players.

I'd be happy to try and think about lower grades - knock up a straw man to be kicked about - but I only have a handful of 5 or so 1CCs...

[Lethe]

It is a fun idea, and potentially a good motivator for some people, but as described that's what it is and not a means of really grading anything. Way too many problems with relying on "difficulty lists" (the only difficulty metric that matters is how much effort you put into something) and 1CCs (you don't get better by shitclearing games by volume, nor does it prove anything).

The only sensible approach I can think of is coming up with a big list of various challenges, grading them on difficulty, and then grading players based on which they can beat. But even then you need to take care not to stretch too far from normal gameplay so most of them would end up as "reach this score" or "clear the game in x lives". At that point it's not so different from a community version of this (which saw virtually no discussion at the time, sadly). And trying to make sense of what goes where is going to be awful.

[qmish]

i'm so awful i never 1cc'ed anything.

However, in some stgs i reach, like, stage 3 in best runs (ddp doj) while in some i struggle already on 1st (monkey king, i hate you)

[davyK]

I would anticipate a long series of grades below having a single 1CC.

The point of this would be to give people a progression path.

A first 1CC is a landmark and could be the first in the ladder of senior grades.

It could also incorporate scoring in older games - a 100K score in Galaga for example being an early first step on the road to enlightenment

[MathU]

In most martial arts that adopt the kyu system (the rainbow of colored belts as students progress to black belt), a black belt simply means that you are certified to teach. You never stop being a student of course. 1st dan black belt means having achieved a basic competency in a particular style such that the student can further enrich themselves. The progression is best thought of as a transformation from a supervised student (kyu ranks) to a self-directed student (dan ranks).

Another fun fact about the martial arts kyu system: it was actually borrowed from Go (the board game) player rankings. So you're almost coming full circle by bringing it to video games! Although in Go's case its usage is all about pairing together players of similar skill level. Most 2D shooters aren't exactly versus games, so it would be difficult to fulfill its original purpose.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

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.

I don't like the idea of mandating that people must play "x" game to gain an arbitrary skill designation. Unlike a martial art, or Go ranking, shmups are extremely varied in how they play, and some simply won't interest or click for folks. Being a fantastic Dodonpachi player doesn't necessarily mean you're a fantastic Espgaluda or Deathsmiles player for instance. Having a lot of 1CCs cleared certainly is a good indicator of a particular general skill level in being able to pick up and play games, but if someone wants to dedicate themselves hardcore to a couple particular games, they should be encouraged to become masters at those without feeling obliged to play other shmups.

[davyK]

Some very good points being made.

The absence of a versus style of competition does challenge the concept of "dans" I suppose.

I am not entirely convinced that shooting games vary from series to series though - at least to a large enough degree to be significant - there are core skills that are transferrable between games. I have certainly noticed how easier I find earlier levels of games after 1CC-ing Gigawing and Darius Gaiden for example. I am finding earlier levels of games that are quite different to those two games easier than I used to. Doing well in one particular game requires a certain degree of route memorisation of course - but those basic dodging and navigation skills are certainly applicable across the genre.

I am convinced that I am a better player than I was before I achieved those 1CCs. I have been playing shooting games since the late 70s but I have increased my skill level in the last 18months by going for a defined achievement....to get a 1CC in a game requires focussed practice - and that's also a skill that is transferable. I am a better player at 54 when I was when I was 20 or 30 because I have applied myself - I have no doubt of that. I was better in terms of reactions when I was younger of course but in my case that clearly didn't matter because I wasn't focussed. Prometheus' excellent document also identifies core skills that are applicable in shmups and other general life skills.

I would imagine a really good DDP player who can get deep into the 2nd loop would be very efficient at getting 1CCs in a range of other games for example. Of course noone is compelled to go for a grade if they are heavily into one or 2 games - high score tables manage that situation.


I am not really hung up on 1CCs - just using that as one way of grading. Presenting a list of challenges is just as viable a way - though I suspect a blend of target scores, completions etc would go together. There are caravan modes and endless shooters where scores alone are a valid way of grading a performance.

It would be best to start with something very modest including a relatively small number of games - maybe looking at the annual popularity poll for example and taking the first 30 or 40 games from that seeing what can be done...creating a set of challenges from those as a first cut?

[davyK]

If anyone wants to try and come up with something for people to criticise and evaluate then PM me - I am up for taking part or helping out in whatever way I can...I am enthusiastic, have a small number of 1CCs, and I can develop code and wrangle data in databases etc just in case that would help. I would need some people who know more about the games and their difficulties - the more opinions the better.

It would be hard to do but I think it would be worth it.

[Jonpachi]

What about an ELO system? Games are arranged in tiers of difficulty, and each tier then adds a set value to the player's overall rank score once completed.

For example:

S Tier - 100 points
A Tier - 75 points
B Tier - 50 points

And so on.

As you complete games, you gain points based on the tier that game came from. For example, if I beat two S Tier games and one A Tier game, my rank sum would be 275. Each of us would have a sum that would speak to our overall mastery of the genre. Super-skilled players would earn more points by completing S Tier games, but a less-skilled player can still grow their sum by working on lots of lower-tier games.

If you've played Clash Royale, they use a similar system. You increase the sum of your rank score by winning battles, and then at various points that equates to new rank titles. At 6000 you are a "Champion" and at 6300 you are a "Grand Champion", etc.

[Jeneki]

How to be a shmup black belt: Be recognized by your peers as such, based on your continuing contributions over the years.

How to fail at being a shmup black belt: Make lists of excuses for why you should be recognized by your peers.

[MathU]

"Contributions"?

[BareKnuckleRoo]

What about an ELO system? Games are arranged in tiers of difficulty, and each tier then adds a set value to the player's overall rank score once completed.

RestartSyndrome's site ranking is done like this. It's a pretty decent measure of general skill across a variety of shmups, but like anything the system isn't necessarily perfectly representative of overall skill. Rankings are as much about quantity as they are quality on that website, and someone who only plays a few games but plays them at a world-record level will still be rated low by the ranking system compared to someone who plays a wide variety of games at an above average level: https://www.restartsyndrome.com/rankings.php

[Jonpachi]

What about an ELO system? Games are arranged in tiers of difficulty, and each tier then adds a set value to the player's overall rank score once completed.

RestartSyndrome's site ranking is done like this. It's a pretty decent measure of general skill across a variety of shmups, but like anything the system isn't necessarily perfectly representative of overall skill. Rankings are as much about quantity as they are quality on that website, and someone who only plays a few games but plays them at a world-record level will still be rated low by the ranking system compared to someone who plays a wide variety of games at an above average level: https://www.restartsyndrome.com/rankings.php

Yeah that makes sense. To me, that makes it more open and fun for everyone though. As stated, these games vary so much that it's impossible to perfectly categorize them. The goal then is simply to give people within the community a way to show their experience level off, and set some short and long-term goals for personal improvement.

The only fix I can see is a system where you have to publicly commit to a specific title. Get the 1CC and your rank goes UP accordingly. Fail, give up, and move on to another game, and your rank goes DOWN. But this would require someone to act as a dedicated monitor of activity, and seems like too much work.

[davyK]

Will check out that restart syndrome link. Sounds good.

[ChurchOfSolipsism]

i'm so awful i never 1cc'ed anything.

However, in some stgs i reach, like, stage 3 in best runs (ddp doj) while in some i struggle already on 1st (monkey king, i hate you)

I have fun improving in tiny steps, but I know that realistically I wouldn't want to aspire getting a single 1CC in any of the games that I enjoy playing (intrinsic motivation and all). I think the belt system in martial arts has some merit, but you can`t tell from somebody's belt colour how good of a fighter he/ she is - if you're willing to admit that winning actual fights is the best measure of how good of a fighter somebody is. Muay Thai is probably the most effective standup technique, and many of the most successful MT schools don't use a belt system.

I guess it can be a motivational factor for some people, but not if you're still considered 'Meh' after clearing only a few games... brother, I made it to stage 5 in DOJ once, and I've been playing this game for 13 years. The vast majority of people would just be graded worst of the worst...

[Lags]

No.
Let your scores or clears do the talking; no need for karate belts, ribbons or shmup diplomas.
We have a high-scores board, go find a game u like and get gud.
There's a jap difficulty list, if you only play survival, see how high you get on it.

[trap15]

No.
Let your scores or clears do the talking; no need for karate belts, ribbons or shmup diplomas.
We have a high-scores board, go find a game u like and get gud.
There's a jap difficulty list, if you only play survival, see how high you get on it.

^ this

[davyK]

but not if you're still considered 'Meh' after clearing only a few games... brother, I made it to stage 5 in DOJ once, and I've been playing this game for 13 years. The vast majority of people would just be graded worst of the worst...

Heh.

I suppose.

I've 1CCed a couple of games I never thought I would - Gigawing and Darius Gaiden. I don't think they are considered particularly difficult by the higher achievers here. Just I Was thinking more about lower end folk. I had to swallow my pride and 1CC Raiden III on Easy - I just couldn't handle that bullet speed which seems to require a lot of muscle memory which for me will take too much time. I can still enjoy that game in score attack mode though tackling levels individually at higher levels and trying to no-miss them,m but I reckon those games with denser slower bullets are more for me.

No.
We have a high-scores board, go find a game u like and get gud.
There's a jap difficulty list, if you only play survival, see how high you get on it.

Point taken. I've posted there when I've got 1CCs and it is satisfying to see my entries even though they aren't troubling the top end. I suppose looking at that survival list might be more my thing.

[davyK]

Just found that difficulty list.

Interesting to see that a survival run of Darius Gaiden with rapid fire is above a 1-ALL DDP. I doubt that very much. Wouldn't consider myself capable of that so that's maybe my next target if I can get this Sengoku Ace 1CC done.

[trap15]

Despite his disgrace, the Perikles list is much more legitimate than "The List" which is full of rather extreme nonsense. However I still disagree with parts of it, including the placement of Darius Gaiden vs DoDonPachi, DDP seems at least 1 or 2 points above DG to me. Probably DG should be moved down 2 or 3 points.

[davyK]

yeah - would agree with that OK.

[To Far Away Times]

That Japanese list is pretty questionable. I used to look at it quite a bit but there's a bunch of stuff I'd switch around on there.

It's also really hard to compare different skill sets.

I find horizontal memorizer games fairly easy since I've learned how to practice them. But I'd never blind 1CC one.

Something like DDP or Mushihimesama Futari 1.5 can definitely be 1CC'd with less of plan but there are twitch dodges that I won't be able to perform every time. There's enough of them that even with an appropriate amount of practice I don't think a 1CC is ever guaranteed versus something like R-Type which can be routed to where a 1CC is pretty much mindless.

[zak]

Despite his disgrace

Did I miss something?

EDIT: nevermind, just saw that thread.