Official BBR Tier List v5

[Steam]

@SL-the game does not change but the metagame does. and that was his point. stop being so stuck up and anal.

 

[x After Dawn x]

Meta Knight can cancel his Shuttle Loop about halfway through the main animation, making it virtually unpunishable by most characters with that alone, and creating a really silly mix-up between when either the cut or the cancel will happen.

Okay, so meta knight has gone from being already broken to slightly slightly more broken? that doesn't really change anything considering he's still by far the best character in the game. also the meta knight dtilt lock isn't anything new either; people just started figuring out about it this year because VGBC posted a video about it that everybody watched.

 

[MJG]

@SL-the game does not change but the metagame does. and that was his point. stop being so stuck up and anal.

I agree with all of this.

 

[Orion*]

@SL-the game does not change but the metagame does. and that was his point. stop being so stuck up and anal.

Try to convince people that there is still some hope left for lol

but srsly

Perception is everything, and the fact that you can't see that- or you're arguing to argue really bothers me.

 

[Coney]

The way you perceive moves/the game do change when your understanding of the game increases. Usually that is synonymous with a skill increase.

yeptenyeps

 

[ShadowLink84]

@SL-the game does not change but the metagame does. and that was his point. stop being so stuck up and anal.

*points to his post with San*

Dyslexia is a real problem these days, yup.

Point is, one should never say, the game changes when your skill changes, nor should one bring skill into an argument concerning the game as its not directly correlated with knowledge on the game.

Rather than jump on the most recent post, as is so often the case, it helps to read back a bit. =3

 

[Orion*]

should one bring skill into an argument concerning the game as its not directly correlated with knowledge on the game.

Knowledge however, is definitely relative to skill.

Even if they can't necessarily word it properly and put it into a fancy paragraph or argument- good players definitely know what they're doing, even if it's instinctively.
Skill is also related to the depth at which you see the game. Knowing something and being able to apply are two different planes of existence, trust me I deal with that all the time being a music major.

Just because someone gets perfect score on their theory exam doesn't mean that they know what music is, or can even relate to it in any such fashion. Cool, they can maybe write a piece that is functionally "correct" and people will read it and go oh, that works. But past that one dimensional face value there is nothing. They don't know what music actually is. They blindly can put chords someplace and maybe it will work, but there's no life to it. There's no evolution, adaptation, no nothing. And because of that, while it may literally be called music by definition, In my own subjective opinion it's not.

True experts of any music genre, regardless of them being a composer, musician or even a dancer can to some degree express what they are talking about in a musical fashion. Why? Because they actually have passion for what they do.
They don't sit behind a computer and talk about music all day and what they "think" sounds good. They go out and they have fun with it. They play, listen, since dance whatever and engorge themselves into because it gives them feeling.

So yeah. Not to say that you can't be correct in what you are saying even. But you can sit there and think that just being able to talk about something is all that needs to be done to see how things works... But that's completely naive- because you haven't even lived the life and seen the other side. The people that are truly great at this game talk about it all the time. But they won't sit around and waste time arguing semantics either... why? Because they are to busy playing.

 

[Blacknight99923]

**** post

this, its just i'm going to quote it in laymens terms

 

[adumbrodeus]

Knowledge definitely is an aspect which is part of skill, but because numerous other aspects decide skill level it doesn't directly correlate. A player with near perfect understanding of the game can easily lose to a player with far inferior understanding who simply had better execution and reading skills.


That's why an amazing composer might not necessarily be able to play a musical instrument to an amazing degree. Example, Bob Dylan has amazing songs, but is not an amazing vocalist by any stretch of the imagination, because that's a different skillset. So people make millions of dollars doing covers of his stuff because the amazing songs are there, but the amazing vocals to color people's perceptions aren't.

Theorycrafting the game in terms of analyzing gameplay a similar skillset to composing, since it is applying concepts based on understanding in order to figure out how they will work in real situations. Theorycrafting is understanding the game in order to understand how mix-ups, zoning, and other core gameplay concepts will play out in actual games. Composing is understanding how beat, tempo, notes, instruments, key signature, and other music concepts with sound when applied in real life (the music is played).


Which is why there are certain ways that you can tell whose a good theorycrafter and knows what they're talking about as opposed to people who know nothing, or worse yet, know the technical data and therefore can sound like they know what they're talking about, but don't actually know how to apply it.

Things like, "can they analyze matches properly, can they coach (not necessarily in terms of habits of a player, more in terms of how to approach a given match-up generally), do they understand how to analyze mix-up games". These things show a deep understanding of the game to a large enough degree to be able to comment on it competently.


So, theorycrafters without tournament placings to back them up can be legit, but the vast majority honestly aren't. Actually, vast majority of theorycrafters in general aren't legit, period, tournament placings or no.

 

[Orion*]

Knowledge definitely is an aspect which is part of skill, but because numerous other aspects decide skill level it doesn't directly correlate. A player with near perfect understanding of the game can easily lose to a player with far inferior understanding who simply had better execution and reading skills.

Where is that player getting these execution and reading skills from? ...He has to play the game LOL. Nobody has near perfect execution or reactions to in game situations without practice.

Then being able to separate yourself physically and mentally from the match and go for reads is also something that has to be practiced, even if it's from lets say another game. like SSBM, or SF

That's why an amazing composer might not necessarily be able to play a musical instrument to an amazing degree. Example, Bob Dylan has amazing songs, but is not an amazing vocalist by any stretch of the imagination, because that's a different skillset. So people make millions of dollars doing covers of his stuff because the amazing songs are there, but the amazing vocals to color people's perceptions aren't.

I wasn't trying to get to subjectively of who's better than who because I hate that stuff, but moreso talk about the fact that to be great at something you have to put in time.

Theorycrafting the game in terms of analyzing gameplay a similar skillset to composing, since it is applying concepts based on understanding in order to figure out how they will work in real situations. Theorycrafting is understanding the game in order to understand how mix-ups, zoning, and other core gameplay concepts will play out in actual games. Composing is understanding how beat, tempo, notes, instruments, key signature, and other music concepts with sound when applied in real life (the music is played).

Agreed although I would like to add that I'm pretty sure any great composer has at some point has probably studied a musical instrument.

Maybe they can sing and do solfedge for the songs they are trying to write. Maybe they can use the piano. ****, I play the drums however for composition/theory classes I am expected to learn basic piano in order to relate my thoughts or whats on the paper into real life.

Which is why there are certain ways that you can tell whose a good theorycrafter and knows what they're talking about as opposed to people who know nothing, or worse yet, know the technical data and therefore can sound like they know what they're talking about, but don't actually know how to apply it.

Things like, "can they analyze matches properly, can they coach (not necessarily in terms of habits of a player, more in terms of how to approach a given match-up generally), do they understand how to analyze mix-up games". These things show a deep understanding of the game to a large enough degree to be able to comment on it competently.

Yes but you don't become good at these things... out of nowhere. Again, the main Point I wanted to try and impress was that in order to do something well, you have to passionately go into it. Even if you want to be a composer and not a musician, my point is that generally because you are engrossed in music as a whole, you are constantly doing something with it. And because of that, even if it is to a lesser degree you can probably play, or dance, or whatever.

So, theorycrafters without tournament placings to back them up can be legit, but the vast majority honestly aren't. Actually, vast majority of theorycrafters in general aren't legit, period, tournament placings or no.

This I can agree with. Although I honestly do believe the people with great placings many times don't even want to talk about that crap just to end up in a debate and would rather just do.

edit: so on the record, for the most part i can agree with you haha

 

[adumbrodeus]

Where is that player getting these execution and reading skills from? ...He has to play the game LOL. Nobody has near perfect execution or reactions to in game situations without practice.

Then being able to separate yourself physically and mentally from the match and go for reads is also something that has to be practiced, even if it's from lets say another game. like SSBM, or SF



I wasn't trying to get to subjectively of who's better than who because I hate that stuff, but moreso talk about the fact that to be great at something you have to put in time.



Agreed although I would like to add that I'm pretty sure any great composer has at some point has probably studied a musical instrument.

Maybe they can sing and do solfedge for the songs they are trying to write. Maybe they can use the piano. ****, I play the drums however for composition/theory classes I am expected to learn basic piano in order to relate my thoughts or whats on the paper into real life.



Yes but you don't become good at these things... out of nowhere. Again, the main Point I wanted to try and impress was that in order to do something well, you have to passionately go into it. Even if you want to be a composer and not a musician, my point is that generally because you are engrossed in music as a whole, you are constantly doing something with it. And because of that, even if it is to a lesser degree you can probably play, or dance, or whatever.



This I can agree with. Although I honestly do believe the people with great placings many times don't even want to talk about that crap just to end up in a debate and would rather just do.

edit: so on the record, for the most part i can agree with you haha

Yea, of course. A lot of composers play piano/keyboard because it's a wonderful composition instrument. You'll also see a lot of guitarists who compose and they definitely put a lot of time into making the music.


So I agree, time put into the game is gonna definitely be a major factor to understand the theory of the game, and not just learning technical data, playing. Yet, by the same token, everybody is different so the same amount of time for different people probably won't necessarily result in competent analysis skill, just like it won't result in the same level of play. I see players who passionately wanna get better at this game who fail miserably at improving no matter what they seem to do. It's the same way with analysis.


So yeah, I think we're in agreement here. *brofists*

 

[Denti]

Shadowlink I'm def an idiot. I made the dumb choice to go out to tournaments and make money instead of sitting at my computer dictionairy in hand making "smart" post while calling people idiots. Gosh golly gee willickers I feel dum du hoo.


_pj_

 

[Espy Rose]

You make money, Denti?

 

[Poltergust]

Not everyone in Texas can be as successful as you, Espy.

Myself included...

 

[Ingoro]

I probably overlooked it as always, but is there any indication that a new tier list may arrive soon?

 

[DMG]

New tier list after Genesis 2

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Orion, I compose video game music for a living. I'm a good saxophone player but I'm not amazing. I'm much better at composing than I am at playing.

 

[Spelt]

New tier list after Genesis 2

plus, if they say it'll be out after genesis 2, that means it's coming out sometime early next year

awww yeeeee

 

[MJG]

You make money, Denti?

That was pj on dentis account hence the _pj_.

*This is PJ

 

[ShadowLink84]

Knowledge however, is definitely relative to skill.

Even if they can't necessarily word it properly and put it into a fancy paragraph or argument- good players definitely know what they're doing, even if it's instinctively.
Skill is also related to the depth at which you see the game. Knowing something and being able to apply are two different planes of existence, trust me I deal with that all the time being a music major.

It isn't bout being capable of putting one's thoughts onto paper. If anything, saying "my experience tells me this" is that not the exact same thing as anecdotal evidence.
Yes from a high level player/musician/what have you it means something more, as there is a basis to it, on the other hand, you need to keep in mind that what they see, hear and observe considers factors that are incapable of being put down.

Just because someone gets perfect score on their theory exam doesn't mean that they know what music is, or can even relate to it in any such fashion. Cool, they can maybe write a piece that is functionally "correct" and people will read it and go oh, that works. But past that one dimensional face value there is nothing. They don't know what music actually is. They blindly can put chords someplace and maybe it will work, but there's no life to it. There's no evolution, adaptation, no nothing. And because of that, while it may literally be called music by definition, In my own subjective opinion it's not.

Theory exam?
Come now drop that stupidity. It's part of why this community is kinda held back since there is this whole, ******** thing of "theory crafters" and "real world" idiocy.

We really need to toss out this foolishness about what theory means.
A theory is something that is supported.
A hypothesis is something that is not supported.
Hence why the law of gravity doesn't explain the movement of satellites around a larger one, but the theory of gravity does.

Furthermore, you acknowledge is it subjective, which is also part of why i would argue that you are also wrong in bringing it into the argument.
Have you not seen an individual who hears not a bit of their song and simply go with the "theory" of it being good to hear?
By your argument, that would be theory.

True experts of any music genre, regardless of them being a composer, musician or even a dancer can to some degree express what they are talking about in a musical fashion. Why? Because they actually have passion for what they do.
They don't sit behind a computer and talk about music all day and what they "think" sounds good. They go out and they have fun with it. They play, listen, since dance whatever and engorge themselves into because it gives them feeling.

You are trying to appeal to emotion here.
Look at sports, there are many who merely comment on the high level play, who make brilliant observations of it.

Or look at the many fans who also watch, are you to say that they are completely incorrect? That it is "impossible" for them know what is good simply because they are not the players?

So yeah. Not to say that you can't be correct in what you are saying even. But you can sit there and think that just being able to talk about something is all that needs to be done to see how things works... But that's completely naive- because you haven't even lived the life and seen the other side. The people that are truly great at this game talk about it all the time. But they won't sit around and waste time arguing semantics either... why? Because they are to busy playing.

So?
Your entire argument basically falls down to this "you are not doing what I am doing so who are you to comment?"
The argument can fall on both sides, because after all, one can argue that because they use so much of their time playing rather than sitting back and analyzing, they do not see methods to improve.

Many things start out as theory, and many things are discussed, and there are many individuals who can probably create a beautiful song even though they cannot hear it.
Just as there are those who are capable of making brilliant observations of sports/games despite never delving into that world.
Some just can't go into it as they lac the skill, doesn't change things when they're right.

Where is that player getting these execution and reading skills from? ...He has to play the game LOL. Nobody has near perfect execution or reactions to in game situations without practice.

Then being able to separate yourself physically and mentally from the match and go for reads is also something that has to be practiced, even if it's from lets say another game. like SSBM, or SFexecution or reactions to in game situations without practice.

Then being able to separate yourself physically and mentally from the match and go for reads is also something that has to be practiced, even if it's from lets say another game. like SSBM, or SF

You misunderstood and then you twisted his statement.
Basically, one knows completely what they have to do in order to put play their opponent.
Their opponent on the other hand, doesn't understand nearly as much, but wins PURELY from their better execution and reading skills.

M2K is a good example of the latter since he didn't bother learning how to do a large number of things and still is number 1 based on his exceptional capability.

It isn't about where they got it from Orion, its about the fact that, Player A may be right, but he did not have the base. He was miserable in his skill.
Player B could ahve done everything wrong without understanding anything about the game but win anyway due to that gap in execution and reading.
It presumes player B did not know nearly as much as Player A, not that they had equal amounts of knowledge.

I wasn't trying to get to subjectively of who's better than who because I hate that stuff, but more so talk about the fact that to be great at something you have to put in time.

It depends how you look at it.
There are many who can compose a song but not play it due to lack of skill, doesn't mean its not good though.

Agreed although I would like to add that I'm pretty sure any great composer has at some point has probably studied a musical instrument.

But can they play it well?
Which is what you brought up earlier about greatness.

Yes but you don't become good at these things... out of nowhere. Again, the main Point I wanted to try and impress was that in order to do something well, you have to passionately go into it. Even if you want to be a composer and not a musician, my point is that generally because you are engrossed in music as a whole, you are constantly doing something with it. And because of that, even if it is to a lesser degree you can probably play, or dance, or whatever.

Aren't you going cyclical?
I am trying to point ot to you that , hey, one cans till know the game extremely well, and probably be very correct in how the game is played but be completely lacking int he ability to be good with it.

This I can agree with. Although I honestly do believe the people with great placings many times don't even want to talk about that crap just to end up in a debate and would rather just do.

edit: so on the record, for the most part i can agree with you haha

I don't know, from what I've seen, it seems like high end players tend to be more...well..interested in themselves rather than explaining the game.
Not that they are selfish, simply because it has no interest to them, which made it rather difficult to gain their input alot of the time.

 

[Z'zgashi]

What do you guys think will be the most drastic changes in the new list?

My guess is Sonic moving up a good amount, top 4 changing (as it used to be considered that the top 4 was pretty obvious as it was), and low tier tournaments not allowing yoshi.

 

[ShadowLink84]

What do you guys think will be the most drastic changes in the new list?

My guess is Sonic moving up a good amount, top 4 changing (as it used to be considered that the top 4 was pretty obvious as it was), and low tier tournaments not allowing yoshi.

Yoshi up.
Sonic down.
Fox down.
I called it.

 

[Yink]

Yoshi up.
Sonic down.
Fox down.
I called it.

I kind of think Luigi might go down, Wolf overtake him.

That's just me though.

 

[Shaya]

Next Tier List:

Diddy no.1
MK 2
Snake 3

 

[Espy Rose]

Sonic going down just makes me laugh.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Fox deserves to be where he is.

 

[Life]

Yoshi up
PT down
Fox down
Pika up
Oli up
Sonic up (this list DOES predate MLG Dallas, IIRC)
Snake down

^My calls.

 

[Yikarur]

Low Tier Tournaments are useless with what the next tierlist is expected to be.
Brawl is too balanced overall =P

 

[da K.I.D.]

all about dem mid tiers.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Yoshi Up
PT Down
Luigi Down
Ike Up (And the MU chart being updated next time with more MUs moved in Ike's advantage due to San joining BBR)
Fox Down
Wolf Up
Sonic Up

Not sure about Diddy/Snake. Diddy won MLG, Snake makes more money and places more often. *shrugs*

 

[Orion*]

Orion, I compose video game music for a living. I'm a good saxophone player but I'm not amazing. I'm much better at composing than I am at playing.

But you do play the sax.... Which is my point. It's not like you just randomly put **** on paper LMFAO

It isn't bout being capable of putting one's thoughts onto paper. If anything, saying "my experience tells me this" is that not the exact same thing as anecdotal evidence.
Yes from a high level player/musician/what have you it means something more, as there is a basis to it, on the other hand, you need to keep in mind that what they see, hear and observe considers factors that are incapable of being put down.

Nobody said "my experience tells me this" as an argument or a post, however there are some posters that do that, and honestly it's not worth reading most of the time lol. I said that through experience you learn about the game, which should be common sense.

We really need to toss out this foolishness about what theory means.
A theory is something that is supported.
A hypothesis is something that is not supported.

Yes but supported by what? I really feel like most of what you post has no real support, because there is no depth to it. It's either that or salt.

Pretty much all your doing is trying to disprove my statements, aka trying to make an argument. Rather than bring conversation to the table

Furthermore, you acknowledge is it subjective, which is also part of why i would argue that you are also wrong in bringing it into the argument.

Most things in life are subjective. Why am I wrong for stating my opinion?

Also, I'm not calling this an argument, or a debate because I'm not trying to win anything or prove a side as a goal. This is just how I feel.

You are trying to appeal to emotion here.
Look at sports, there are many who merely comment on the high level play, who make brilliant observations of it.

It's not an appeal. I'm sure the fans don't know as much as lets say the people who professionally comment on the game. Why? Because the people who are commenting on it are paid to. It's their life to actually study and be prepared to talk about this game. They are still engrossed into it, they have passion and they relate things to the game all the time.

Also, on the note for sports commentators. I would be willing to bet most of those people played at least in Highschool or College lmao so just for fun I went on wiki and checked out NFL/NBC commentators for recent years.

Spoiler

2008
Tom Hammond- Doesn't say anything about him playing, however he has been a sports commentator since highschool. That's quite a lot of experience in general
Cris Collinsworth- was in the NFL
Tiki Barber-was in the NFL
Al Michaels- Majored in college as a sports writer, 10 years later joined ABC as a backup announcer
Andrea Kermer- She also started off as a producer in 1984 and then moved on to being a correspondent, mediator, and interviewer later. Even in 2006 she was only a sideline reporter.
John Madden- also NFL

So?
Your entire argument basically falls down to this "you are not doing what I am doing so who are you to comment?"

No. My statement means, "you aren't doing anything positive"

You can look at that in either a negative or a positive way. Because life is subjective like that.. I hope you look at it in the positive way

The argument can fall on both sides, because after all, one can argue that because they use so much of their time playing rather than sitting back and analyzing, they do not see methods to improve.

I'm pretty sure all top players analyze their gameplay. They just don't sit and waste time arguing semantics on SWF as much as the as you...

Many things start out as theory, and many things are discussed, and there are many individuals who can probably create a beautiful song even though they cannot hear it.

That's like saying I can't speak English but I'm going to write an essay lol. Music is a language, even if you can't necessarily speak it fluently, you have to be able to hear it in order to know what is going on.

Just as there are those who are capable of making brilliant observations of sports/games despite never delving into that world.

Already explained why all the "brilliant" people have a lot of experience.

Some just can't go into it as they lac the skill, doesn't change things when they're right.

You don't see those people actually doing anything other than commentary either. It's not like they have any influence over the actual game rules or coach the players LOL

In fact since the last time my hunch was right LOL I went to see who was in the NFL competition committee (they make the rules)

Spoiler

Rich Mckay- His father owned a team and he was exposed to football his whole life, played in HS and joined NFL
Jeff Fisher- Was in the NFL, later became a coach
Marvin Lewis- Did not play in professionally but did play football in addition to baseball and wrestling in HS and college. Before having influence he did also serve as an assistant coach before moving to a head coach, and now also being on the committee.
Rick Smith- NFL
John Mara- His father owned the Giants, also was exposed to a lot of ball his whole life. Didnt take presidency of the team until after working on it for 15 years. Essentially he is the CEO
Ozzie Newsome- NFL
Bill Polian- Played in US and Canadian Football leagues
Stephen Jones- no info, to lazy to look lol even if he didn't do anything, I feel like that's enough data LOL

You misunderstood and then you twisted his statement.

He agreed with me... -.-

M2K is a good example of the latter since he didn't bother learning how to do a large number of things and still is number 1 based on his exceptional capability.

What didn't m2k learn how to do? >_>

***** ODs on this game and that further proves my point- he wins because he put in time. He knows SO much about this game, like it's actually disgusting.

It depends how you look at it.
There are many who can compose a song but not play it due to lack of skill, doesn't mean its not good though.

It seems like you here who actually misunderstood both me and adums post LOL

They don't necessarily have to be able to play what their writing but because they are engrossed with music as a whole they can at least talk the language to some degree and be able to hear it as well to write something like that.

But can they play it well?
Which is what you brought up earlier about greatness.

*points to his post with SL*

Dyslexia is a real problem these days, yup.

but in case you can't find it I said this
"The people that are truly great at this game talk about it all the time."
"to be great at something you have to put in time."
"I'm pretty sure any great composer has at some point has probably studied a musical instrument. "

Only things I said about greatness lol.

Aren't you going cyclical?

I actually had to pull the dictionary out for this one.. >_>

I don't really see what your point is if I read that LOL

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cyclical

I am trying to point ot to you that , hey, one cans till know the game extremely well, and probably be very correct in how the game is played but be completely lacking int he ability to be good with it.

It depends on what your definition of good. I'm not even getting into that moreso than spending time playing. Legitimately a little effort goes a long wayyyy in game.

You can have absolutely zero reading skills but with practice and but practice good execution be a pretty decent player.
You can Have zero tech skill, but with smart reads and instincts use really basic moves and make it past rounds in a tournament.

Unless you literally have no hands or something no johns bro- it's literally just put in time.

I don't know, from what I've seen, it seems like high end players tend to be more...well..interested in themselves rather than explaining the game.
Not that they are selfish, simply because it has no interest to them, which made it rather difficult to gain their input alot of the time.

If you really cared about the game you would message them, and usually they are very willing to talk to you. Even now sometimes I message players and ask for advice that won't sit on SWF and argue.

When I was learning and even now I messaged players like Spam, Atomsk, Ksizzle, Afro, Seibrik, M2K, Neo, Larry, Rhaldberd, Master Raven, Pierce, Kadaj, Gimpyfish, Shugo, Vinnie, Swordgard, Anti, Ninjalink and sooooooo many more that I cant even remember if I tried.

Some where more willing to talk than others, yes. But I learned a lot from them just from that

 

[Yikarur]

Orions wall of quotes... too much to read D: xD

 

[MJG]

I read. Orion is beastly

 

[adumbrodeus]

SL he's saying two things.

1. The more you play the game the more you understand it.

2. Understanding the game tends to improve your ability to play the game (but doesn't necessary make you good).


What's wrong with that?

 

[Steam]

SL he's saying two things.

1. The more you play the game the more you understand it.

2. Understanding the game tends to improve your ability to play the game (but doesn't necessary make you good).


What's wrong with that?

because he doesn't play the game but likes to think he understands everything about it. :o

 

[Zajice]

Steam go to sleep. It's only like 8am, what're you doing up?

 

[adumbrodeus]

because he doesn't play the game but likes to think he understands everything about it. :o

No, SL definitely plays the game a lot. He does have a tendency to overreact to things that he thinks are saying that if you're good everything you say is 100% truth.

 

[Spelt]

because he doesn't play the game but likes to think he understands everything about it. :o

According to you nobody plays the game...

Steam go to sleep. It's only like 8am, what're you doing up?

He's probably just waking up. You know... At normal waking up time.

 

[Matador]

By "lacking ability to be good at the game", are you referring to some players lacking high enough execution or reaction times or something?

Or lacking "talent"?

 

[adumbrodeus]

By "lacking ability to be good at the game", are you referring to some players lacking high enough execution or reaction times or something?

Or lacking "talent"?

Not forget reading ability and unpredictability.

All the reaction time and execution ability in the world won't help you if your opponent knows exactly what you're gonna do before you do it and you can't figure out a pattern for your life.