How do you indentify good players?

[Deleted member 189823]

Generally, to me, a good player is someone who uses skill and flash in their play, reguardless of winning or not. I really appreciate tech skill. I don't care if you chaingrab or spam tornado just to win, that doesn't make you "good". To me, giving a good show and showing off your skill as some form of art is all it.

Just me ranting against the general, black-and-white system of criteria.

But don't get me wrong, I can find players that are more on the simple side good as well...players like Delta-cod, M2K, etc.

 

[infiniteV115]

Good = likely to place well at tournaments.
Your thread is invalid.

 

[C.J.]

Good = winning

Anything involving flash, "art", what you want to see = enjoyable.

There's a big difference.

Most movies that people go see = enjoyable but awful (see: almost everything with a ton of explosions).

Good Will Hunting, The Prestige, Citizen Kane, etc = good

 

[Deleted member 189823]

Good = likely to place well at tournaments.
Your thread is invalid.

It can't be invalid, it's an opinion.

Good = winning

Anything involving flash, "art", what you want to see = enjoyable.

There's a big difference.

Most movies that people go see = enjoyable but awful (see: almost everything with a ton of explosions).

Good Will Hunting, The Prestige, Citizen Kane, etc = good

What if you win by spamming Tornado and your opponent is actually bad enough to fall for it? Are you "good" then?

 

[infiniteV115]

No, because beating a bad player doesn't make you good.
Beating good players makes you good. Good players know how to deal with 'spamming tornado'.

 

[AmKhokar]

I could QAC all game as Pika but still suck pretty hard. It's easy to be flashy, but to beat good players is much tougher.

 

[Deleted member 189823]

No, because beating a bad player doesn't make you good.
Beating good players makes you good. Good players know how to deal with 'spamming tornado'.

But then, I assume that good players would rely on more than just two or three moves to deal with their opponent. Maybe, just maybe I'm too biased on what goes on in my region...

CJ pretty much nailed. In the end, it's really what I just enjoy...but hey, it's a game. And it can be fun as well, even if it seems alot of players just play it to win.

 

[infiniteV115]

Good players DO use more than 2 or 3 moves to deal with your opponent. I don't know who you've been watching, but if they're only using 2 or 3 moves then they're not good.

Edit: Even in MUs like DDD:DK which is incredibly simple and straight forward for DDD, you'll still see DDD using more moves outside of dthrow, ftilt and bair.

 

[Ayce God]

I don't agree with that.

"good" is simply a opinion.

beating good people is not the only way to determine if someone's good.

 

[Smasher89]

The easy way for me was to check all early videos of the game that got released with the good(in my oppinion since the early tierlists are terrible) characters.
More often then not when videos of japanese players emerge they often are very simple but are doing alot of subtle things and as time progresses you see what they have found for new tricks. If a player often uses new tricks and is winning the matches i think that is a player who is at the possible top at the character meta, however for example a american style can be good too in other ways (more often then not, more defensive) ways.

 

[SnowCold]

Good = likely to place well at tournaments.
Your thread is invalid.

It's not invalid... It's sets a point for discussion... which is what forums are for lol. "For-Ums", so you can discuss Um moments, moments where you have an opinion but want other people's opinion too, "Um I don't know, what do you think?". And yes, I am aware that forums doesn't derive from "For-ums". It's just something I made up.

Anyway, to the initial post, "good" can have different variations. What you mentioned, IS good. But in it's own sense. Your good is technical good. The precision and speed of your fingers. Many top players don't have that. In melee, Lovage and silent wolf are clearly more technical than say mew2king. But mew2king is good in his own way. This way is what wins tournaments.

Being a good player is much different. One of the most annoying things for street fighter players is to see comments like "Daigo sucks, he just spams fireballs". SF players hate hearing this because he's not spamming fireballs. He's properly spacing and camping with fireballs. Projectile camping can be very skilled. Falcos that just spam laser easily get beat. Players that know what laser's uses are, such as forcing approaches, pressuring, spacing, etc, tend to do a lot better.

Chaingrabs do require skill. I don't mean just IC chaingrabs, it's already been made apparant that IC chaingrabs are one of the hardest techniques to pull off, I mean even the easy ones like falco and pikachu's chaingrab. Pikachu requires you to buffer the grab, which can be hard to do consistently because 10 frames isn't even half a second. Falco's is easier on most characters, however doing it on marth, or floaty characters, can be very difficult as well.

And as for "spamming" tornadoes, MK mains (or at least the top ones) know how to space and use tornado properly. Higher level players can easily punish misused tornadoes. "Spamming" tornadoes is a term used by lower level players, and intermediate level but-still-not-completely-aware-of-how-to-counter-nadospams. It's for this reason why I HATE when people trash talk hungrybox about spamming B-air. He's not spamming it. He's intelligently walling off his opponent. It's a solid tactic, why shouldn't he use it? This is another point to being a good player. Good players are willing to use chaingrabs and seemingly "cheap" spacing tactics.

Good players also know how to consistently counter misused spamming of moves. That's why a lot of people say "Wtf, why can't I beat top players like esam and anti when M2K can? I spammed tornado just as much as he does". That's because it's just spamming. spamming tornado is no different than sand-bagging for top players. Good players also adapt well, DI well, read well, and punish well. So Good players may not be as interesting to watch as good technical players on the outside, however when you start paying closer attention and noticing all the smart options and ideas and spacing, you start respecting top players a lot more.


Btw, Sorry for the wall of text. This is just a question a LOT of people have and I enjoy answering as best I can with as much detail as I can.

Edit: I split my post into paragraphs to make it easier to read.

 

[infiniteV115]

My definition of good is much better than the definition that Swei used (and I didn't read your whole post so idk what your definition is) because at tournaments, we play (at least partially) for money and we reward the players who win more often.
When you throw something like money into the equation, you have to be as objective as possible when it comes to determining who is 'good' or not. And that's why I think it's best to go off of results to determine who is good and who isn't. Results are objective. 'Flashiness' is subjective.

We also focus our rulesets around determining who the better player is. That's why the person who advances to the next round in bracket is the one who wins. That's why you have to win multiple times to place in the money. etc etc

Saying something like

Generally, to me, a good player is someone who uses skill and flash in their play, reguardless of winning or not.

Is just dumb. Tournaments aren't flashiness contests.

 

[SnowCold]

Wells that's discussion. People have different opinions. Also I highly recommend reading what I said. I explain the differences.

 

[deepseadiva]

OP just wants recognition for being able to dragon reverse or whatever despite never scoring in the money.

 

[Ayce God]

flashiness = good....? all of Japan is garbage ? oh dear....

 

[*Cam*]

I think SnowCold gave a very reasonable definition and viewpoint in his long post. I deal with new players a lot at our university smash club, and they often don't appreciate the distinction between spamming and strategically using moves.

 

[Deleted member 189823]

OP just wants recognition for being able to dragon reverse or whatever despite never scoring in the money.

Jee, I wish I could DR. That thing is incredibly hard.
Besides, what's another 50$.

flashiness = good....? all of Japan is garbage ? oh dear....

I thought Japan had some share of flash and winning themselves.

 

[Life]

where is drinkingfood when you need him

all these wrong opinions

 

[SnowCold]

Wrong opinions? lol

 

[Deleted member 189823]

Oh, by the way, I am completely aware of my subjectiveness. In fact, I've always been. I don't expect to change a...12-13-year old system? with this. It's just something I think, an opinion. How can it be wrong if it's just a different ideal?

Wrong opinions? lol

Completely.

Oh, by the way, I really appreciate what you say and take it to mind. It makes me look at things a little differently now.

 

[deepseadiva]

There's no subjectivity here. There's no "different opinions".

This is semantics. Decide what type of good you're referring to. If you're speaking of competition, the rest of the world uses "good = winning". The end.

 

[TreK]

Actually, this is a pretty interesting question.

I mean, if 'goodness' was determined by 'how much money you make playing smash', then I'd be pretty damn good because I often do bets with my friends at parties where they try to 2v1 my ganondorf. If this is the critera used to determine who is good, then I'm better than most people who would kick my *** in tournament play.

My point is, you aren't just 'good', you are 'good in a particular context', because I already see you arriving with your flamethrowers, telling me 'then being good is determined by how much money you make in tournament play, noob !'

I do agree with that, I just feel like, in all honesty, this is a question we have yet to ask ourselves. If we are good in a particular context, or a particular ruleset if you mind, what determines the reasons why we would use that particular ruleset for tournaments ? Would the 'best player in the world' be the same in a MK-banned environment ? Would he still be the same in a item-allowed environment ? If the answer is 'no', then maybe he is not the best player in the world, is he ? (rhetorical question here, I basically answer 'yes he is' below, but rereading myself it wasn't too clear so I'm just making sure you get my point)

I think the main thing that has tied up together the different ruleset that we have made for the past years is the possibility to achieve consistency by removing most random elements that have a impact on the game style needed to achieve victory. So in tournaments like we know them, I'd say that being good is 'being able to achieve victory with consistency'. That's really what tournaments as we know them tend to determine.

But as for the question 'what is a good player', for the reasons I explained above, I think the answer is 'someone whose success rate is high no matter what ruleset he follows'.

 

[Tesh]

Good = winning

Anything involving flash, "art", what you want to see = enjoyable.

There's a big difference.

Most movies that people go see = enjoyable but awful (see: almost everything with a ton of explosions).

Good Will Hunting, The Prestige, Citizen Kane, etc = good

Well this is kind of a stupid comment. When the purpose of something is to entertain and be enjoyed, then entertainment and enjoyability do = good. When the purpose is to win and earn a prize, good= whatever you do to win within the rules.

 

[infiniteV115]

I think we should stop posting in this thread so it can die.

 

[Deleted member 189823]

Nevermind, I agree with infinite.
It's been...a nice discussion?

 

[SnowCold]

Oh, by the way, I am completely aware of my subjectiveness. In fact, I've always been. I don't expect to change a...12-13-year old system? with this. It's just something I think, an opinion. How can it be wrong if it's just a different ideal?



Completely.

Oh, by the way, I really appreciate what you say and take it to mind. It makes me look at things a little differently now.

Sure. Glad I helped

 

[Dre89]

Good = winning

Anything involving flash, "art", what you want to see = enjoyable.

There's a big difference.

Most movies that people go see = enjoyable but awful (see: almost everything with a ton of explosions).

Good Will Hunting, The Prestige, Citizen Kane, etc = good

This is incredibly bias.

Those movies aren't objectively better. No movie is objectively better than another. They're just more creative or sophisticated. You just equate creativity/sophistication to "objectively better" because that's what you personally value in movies.

 

[Vermanubis]

You can identify good players by whether or not they can identify their mistakes and how well they understand their options and the diverging causal pathways therein, i.e., knowing how to respond to a response.

 

[Alphicans]

Your flashy = good is good and all but consider this:

You see a guy play the flashiest you've ever seen, doing techniques that are typically considered impossible or whatever. You naturally say "wow he's good!"

Then a guy who plays really basic, vs's this flashy guy and 3 stocks him. Your definition kind of forces you to say the flashy guy is better :/. I suppose that's fine if you're willing to hold on to your "opinion" to great lengths, but to me this sounds absurd.

 

[Pierce7d]

There are two primary components to winning at Smash. You have mechanical skill which enables you to execute commands consistently. You have meta-understanding, which enables you to pick options that make sense and are likely to beat your opponent's options. The players who have better abilities to make good decisions and execute those decisions are better at the game. There are other factors included in winning (such as the match-up) but this is how I measure skill. When I watch a video, and I see a player make a lot of technical errors or poor decisions, I believe that player is bad. Even if a player loses, if I see them make lots of optimal decisions, and execute properly, that's good.

For the earlier example of Mach Tornado against a bad player: if the Mach Tornado is a good option, then the player using it is more likely to be skilled. If Mach Tornado is used against an opponent who can easily react and punish, it's not a wise option, and more likely to make me think that it's a bad player.

If a player's opponent is at neutral (or any situation outside of dizzy or planted) and the player chooses to use Warlock Punch, that is a bad option and I would consider the player to be unskilled, regardless of whether the Warlock Punch connected or not.

 

[Pierce7d]

Please keep in mind that I would not use a match in which case one or both players are aware that there is a sizeable gap in skill to measure skill, because often players tend to pick subpar options to earn style points, instead of prioritizing winning, and once a player stops playing to win, and starts playing for entertainment only, then it is impossible to measure their skill.

 

[SnowCold]

In my eyes, the best player would be one with both of the aspects pierce stated. the Technical prowess and the meta-wisdom and knowledge. There are players like this. Mr.r is a good example. he would be better if he wasn't approaching all the time and didn't go for so many high risk-high reward options, but you can definitely see his tech skill and meta game knowledge come into play. Esam is also a good example, as well as Nairo, Otori, Kakera, Gluttony, etc. There are certain players whose meta game understanding is strong enough that they don't need a lot of tech skill. M2K is an example of this. M2K still has some tech skill, but not as much as nairo or otori. however, his gimping abilities, reads, reactions, everything, is far superior.

 

[Ayce God]

stop

 

[umegames]

Good -Adjective -satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree. (dictionary.com)

for lack of words, "good" is relative to eaches own.

for me, everyone is beatable, everyone has a weakness, ANYONE can be "good"

 

[StonedEmu]

----------

 

[deepseadiva]

These are some good posts in a bad thread.

 

[hell-dew]

I find this topic funny cause V is ironically really flashy (and good) yet flat out disagrees with OP

Personally though i agree with V on this a flashy player is a flashy player a good player is someone who plays the game well can keep a level head and earn victories and do a bunch of stuff thats required to learn and play the game well.

TCs opinion is more of a he prefers watching flashy players which is perfectly alright. but i would never call a flashy player good just because they are flashy. its an incorrect use of the term and thus i agree his opinion is wrong.

are flashy players fun to watch sure. are flashy players good? um not really.

I think SnowCold gave a very reasonable definition and viewpoint in his long post. I deal with new players a lot at our university smash club, and they often don't appreciate the distinction between spamming and strategically using moves.

People think i spam with pikachu because i space them with Tjolts forcing them to approach >.> its even more ridiculous when they say im spamming thunder cause they get hit by thunder twice in a row which kills them really freaking quickly.

 

[Deleted member 189823]

Hey, guys, as the OP, I must say that this opinion of mine has decreased to the point that is most likely little to no more...

After watching Mikeneko play at APEX, I completely started appreciating a simplistically and skilled game without having to be flashy- In fact, it was his precision, timing and overly simplistic playstyle that caught me to love that. In fact, I much prefer Mikeneko over a flashy player like Mr.R (who is still very good, honestly).

 

[Kink-Link5]

Glad to see you've gotten some sense and appreciation for basic reasoning.

 

[Ghooru]

IME a good player will have an aura about them, you can just tell they are good.

That, and they win