Skill?

[Hobbezak]

I think the two most important things in this game, especially when it comes to alliance play, are common sense and the ability to follow orders without screwing up. Without those, you'll never do well.

And loyalty...

This thread is funny.

Do you mean loyalty as in not spying, or loyalty as in sticking by your alliance? Because the latter sounds nice, but is not really realistic. Members get kicked (/asked to leave) for underperforming, even when the alliance started out as ftf with no activity requirements.
So when players outperform their respective alliances, it sounds reasonable that they are allowed to leave if they want to.
A bit like football playersand clubs. When things go bad, the player is dropped like a stone (either benched or worse), but when he's doing great, in some circumstances it's suddenly immoral to ask for a transfer. Loyalty works two ways obviously.

edit: e.g. I've seen people kickrape an underperforming player a week or 2 into the round, and the very same players going absolutely batshit crazy 2 weeks before the end of the round when another player leaves for another alliance. Consistency please.
But maybe the whole loyalty discussion is something for another topic

 

[Zaheen]

But this is a war game Hobbe, not a football team.

Compare it with like at least, a COD 4 game for example? Just because your team sucks and the other team is better, doesn't mean you hop into the other team and make your original one even worse. Surely if the person on the team was doing nothing but standing behind their base setting options (or in Bushtarion, logs in once every 2 days to grow some seeds - certainly not participating, contributing, or making it fun for anybody else around them), then they would be needed/wanted by that team, regardless of how fun the teams goals set out to be. It does work both ways, and would depend on any given situation. Maybe it's just me taking your comment personal, and it's by total fluke the same happened in my alliance last night.

Football teams have contracts, there is nothing to be loyal about anymore as players from different towns, clubs and countries move around all the time. In most games I know friends stick together, especially when they've made promises as such.

But whatever, that is a whole discussion completely - I was just adding to Polo's comments as I'm sure there are many others factors to consider.

 

[timtadams]

well.. SKILL...

interesting discussion...

I think there is a bit of a grey area where its hard to define skill from knowledge. If having knowledge is skill then sure, knowing ratios, what units are effective against others and when players are online then you certainly will be a skilled player.

However, i do not agree with this. I reckon the skill lies in being able to use your knowledge to your advantage. The degree to which you can use your knowledge to outwit your opponent defines your level of skill (Obviously its not a yes/no situation and there are levels of skill).

For example, a low skilled player could know that his route is effective against what route and so attacks said route and wins.

A slightly more skilled player may use tactics to successfully attack an alliance. the attacker gathers intel on what each player has. They co-ordinate many mobs against certain players. They send fakes to the players they are most likely to defeat, but send the real to a player that is not necessarily the easiest to defeat. They coordinate their attack based on trying to interpret how the defenders will react.

They may even try to make a fake look real by sending a round number + gardeners of same number of geos...
I think this is a bit skillful...

I would say a lot of skill would involve coordinating mass attacks against a larger alliance (like a resistance). This requires much planning and what routes to send at certain players at what times. I reckon the time when each mob is sent is very important as it can determine the amount of defence that can make it in time to defend.

however the most skill comes in being able to think and adapt to changing situations. So say someone is coordinating a resistance, but the defenders are able to pick the right mobs to defend. Someone needs to interpret the situation and come up with a counter in minutes, and relay that info to everyone involved.

I still reckon its hard to define skill in relation to a text base game. My argument is based on the assumption that tactics = skill. If not, there is no skill.

 

[Dax]

You cannot determine it. It's that simple. You can say what you believe to be skilful, but other people will always disagree.
I value loyalty. If you will stick by people, then you're worth keeping. Trust is key in any team-based game. That's a fact, but it doesn't make you skilful purely because you are loyal (as Zaheen exemplified). A good understanding of the game and loyalty is a brilliant combination in my eyes, but other people may see activity and knowledge being more important.
I know who I would ask if I wanted to run an alliance for a core, and I'd get new people in to fill the blanks. I did the same in Finale, and we did rather well til it all got thrown down the toilet by certain individuals.

 

[timtadams]

You cannot determine it. It's that simple. You can say what you believe to be skilful, but other people will always disagree.
I value loyalty. If you will stick by people, then you're worth keeping. Trust is key in any team-based game. That's a fact, but it doesn't make you skilful purely because you are loyal (as Zaheen exemplified). A good understanding of the game and loyalty is a brilliant combination in my eyes, but other people may see activity and knowledge being more important.
I know who I would ask if I wanted to run an alliance for a core, and I'd get new people in to fill the blanks. I did the same in Finale, and we did rather well til it all got thrown down the toilet by certain individuals.

well, it cant be quantified, but i think it cant be gauged based on previous acheivements (not necessarliy awards)...

but i agree with everything else

Also, loyalty, activity (while very valuable) =/= skill

 

[Dimitar]

I've got it.

 

[tobapopalos]

I've got it.

We all know you have herpes, Prot. You don't have to brag.

 

[Dimitar]

Sorry.

 

[vlad]

Against the greatest odds and the ability to previal on several occasions, thats skill.

 

[Zaheen]

Against the greatest odds and the ability to previal on several occasions, thats skill.

Right on the money.

 

[aGit]

Activity? No, any idiot can spend hours infront of their computer.
Fast stealing? No, anyone can spam gardeners and get their alliance to cover them.
Holding on to land? No, any muppet can hit mass gurus/traps whatever.
Bounty hunting? No, there's no skill in massing one unit and sending at routes that are weak against yours.
Holding a high rank on low activity? Anyone can make themselves a less attractive target than those around them eg bunkers/mass terrors.
Organising mass attacks? Pfft, any idiot can say "mass id xxxx"
Exploiting a loophole? Just because you stumbled upon a loophole, doesn't make you a skilled player

a right mixture of all of the above and the ability to adapt

 

[Obstacle]

This is a tough debated questions that has probably been around for a very long time in many different forms.

Activity - The amount of time you spend online has nothing to do with skill. Someone who is excellent or still learning the ropes can be online a lot.

However, a skillful player will search out his targets and know when his targets are least active and strike accordingly.

Contactibility - This was the counter used to get around the above. For those who could not dedicate themselves to being online for so many hours a day, decided to make it possible to be contacted when needed. Again a good/poor player can be easily contacted and has nothing to do with skill.

One counter to this would be massing the target, so even if they were able to bring a defense they would be overwhelmed.

Massing - Overwhelming a target - This will be a hard one to define and I guess the best way to determine it would be who is more effective at it, is more skilfull.

One person may not know ratios very well, and send all of his units when only 1/5th are needed to land with minimal losses. If he can send 4 attacks and land, and still have troops at home to defense, in my opinion that is a very skillful player in regards to attacking and defending.

Knowing what to send, when to send it, and being able to predict your losses are all traits that require skill in the game.

Anyone can send more then enough to conquer an enemy, but few can send just the right amount to break through with minimal losses.

I personally have made people recall their overwhelming force because they sent everything they had, and would have lost more then they would have gained.

I have survived many attacks by a robotics player trying to feed me to his scrap bots, and because he didn't send geos, or seed thiefs, he simply relied on his ability to damage my troops and convert them. Had he sent Geos or something that would make me think twice about sending my troops out would have been a better decision for him.

It comes down to this.

How well do you know the route you are playing?
How well do you know the strengths and weaknesses of the route you are playing?
How well do you know the strengths and weaknesses of the route you are attacking or defending against?
How well do you know all routes and their strengths and weaknesses?

And one very important question.

How well do you apply everything above?

That last question I think is one of the most important, because someone may know their route inside and out, but when push comes to shove not be able to apply what they know very well. Anyone can read the manual inside and out and have it memorized, but actually putting that info to practice and gaining experience plays a large role.

I have a lot to learn in this game still, and hope I continue to get better each round.

 

[LuckySports]

This is a tough debated questions that has probably been around for a very long time in many different forms.

Activity - The amount of time you spend online has nothing to do with skill. Someone who is excellent or still learning the ropes can be online a lot.

However, a skillful player will search out his targets and know when his targets are least active and strike accordingly.

Contactibility - This was the counter used to get around the above. For those who could not dedicate themselves to being online for so many hours a day, decided to make it possible to be contacted when needed. Again a good/poor player can be easily contacted and has nothing to do with skill.

One counter to this would be massing the target, so even if they were able to bring a defense they would be overwhelmed.

Massing - Overwhelming a target - This will be a hard one to define and I guess the best way to determine it would be who is more effective at it, is more skilfull.

One person may not know ratios very well, and send all of his units when only 1/5th are needed to land with minimal losses. If he can send 4 attacks and land, and still have troops at home to defense, in my opinion that is a very skillful player in regards to attacking and defending.

Knowing what to send, when to send it, and being able to predict your losses are all traits that require skill in the game.

Anyone can send more then enough to conquer an enemy, but few can send just the right amount to break through with minimal losses.

I personally have made people recall their overwhelming force because they sent everything they had, and would have lost more then they would have gained.

I have survived many attacks by a robotics player trying to feed me to his scrap bots, and because he didn't send geos, or seed thiefs, he simply relied on his ability to damage my troops and convert them. Had he sent Geos or something that would make me think twice about sending my troops out would have been a better decision for him.

It comes down to this.

How well do you know the route you are playing?
How well do you know the strengths and weaknesses of the route you are playing?
How well do you know the strengths and weaknesses of the route you are attacking or defending against?
How well do you know all routes and their strengths and weaknesses?

And one very important question.

How well do you apply everything above?

That last question I think is one of the most important, because someone may know their route inside and out, but when push comes to shove not be able to apply what they know very well. Anyone can read the manual inside and out and have it memorized, but actually putting that info to practice and gaining experience plays a large role.

I have a lot to learn in this game still, and hope I continue to get better each round.

This..


"skill" is a loose term for a game of numbers, calculations, and mathematics.. It is usually applied to something that requires reflexes or some sort of physical reaction..

This game is ALL about knowing the numbers.. Being able to look at a situation and call out how it will go.. THAT is what is considered skill here.. but really, a new player could master that quickly if he is smart, and good with numbers.. The same thing could be called experience too..

so if you want to call yourself "skilled"

try sending 5 attacks from an Iphone within 5 seconds of the tick.. THAT could be skill.. it certainly requires more than knowledge of the game.. quick fingers are important..


Other than that.. Skill is really how you define it.

 

[Hobbezak]

"skill" is a loose term for a game of numbers, calculations, and mathematics.. It is usually applied to something that requires reflexes or some sort of physical reaction..

No it's not. Skill can be physically, but it can also be intellectually, or creatively, or whatever.
Alliance politics (making yourself look like less of a threat, finding allies for resistance and convincing them to team up, etc) are a skill. You can easily spot the people who are better at it (e.g. Twigley, which is also a disadvantage because when he says anything on politics, everyone thinks he has a hidden agenda ).
Quickly getting an overview of a mass incoming is a skill. Staying cool under pressure, quickly doing some calculations that end up quite accurate, getting an overview on who's online with which troops and who isn't, and organising defence accordingly. That is a skill.
Leading an alliance through a rough patch, keeping them together when you're being targetted by multiple alliances larger than you, that's a skill.

Basically, I disagree with your definition of "skill requires physical action".

 

[LuckySports]

"skill" is a loose term for a game of numbers, calculations, and mathematics.. It is usually applied to something that requires reflexes or some sort of physical reaction..

Sorry.. just thought I'd point that out.

You only saw 1 sentence in my post and then ignored the rest.. Re-read it.. I later went on to say that it all depends on how you define skill It wasn't a long post either..

Besides - those things you named can also be personality traits.. Some people are charismatic, so they are good at convincing people to do things.. Others are not.. Politics can be a skill if you wish, that one is open I'd say..

All in all - Its still a loose term.. Different people will define it in different ways.. Ultimately - if you can do well in the game, people will call you skilled.. If you only do well when you get carried, you will not be called skilled.

 

[Twigley]

Twigley is skill.

This is what hobbe was trying to say.

 

[Dax]

Twigley is skill.

This is what hobbe was trying to say.

 

[atsanjose]

Boring us to death with your endless squabbling about non-important subjects is a skill