Jump to content

What Stats Make Up A Players Skill


Recommended Posts

Anyone who thinks when seeing obvious stupid mistakes from someone that the player wasn’t intelligent enough to have thought of the issue should know that  99.9% of the time its just confusion from brain overload that causes the mistake.

 0ad is a very intense,demanding game so it’s wouldn't be surprising that some days you could be much worse at playing than others.

Even "good" players make insanely simple mistakes because of simple exaustion or low stamina(at that time)/brain juice.

Maybe they feel tired that day(week’s ,month’s) or are feeling off and that’s an easy skill drop cause.

It’s true that top 3-5 players are insanely competent physiologically in sustaining proper functioning for long periods of time in a stable manner but don’t think that everyone is like that.

everyone doesn’t have same capabilities ,weaknesses or potential.

 

For those stable ones their gameplay in several matches skill wise is extremely similar they can’t really play much better or much worse than their average skill level although even they can get really weakened significantly from getting sick or in any other way suffer anything that weakens you physically.

These types off people are the best at reaching the top of 0ad.

 

 number one issue stopping people from improving in 0ad is physiology.

 

yes it’s fun to think about 0ad strategies and other non-simple matters but what really matters for being a good player and nearly completely decides your skill is: physiology.

 

Stamina 45%-self explanatory it just means endurance

 

multitasking efficiency 22.5%-extremely low cost in stamina to be aware constantly, of many extremely simple variables.

 

micro22.5%-reflexes in fighting and micromanaging basically anything that requires lots of clicks, timing or reflexes.

 

then comes probably the (areal)awareness 5%- real time awareness of your future potential and theoretical plans:

strategic building placement, enemy unit(s) theoretical position awareness based on units speed and last seen position, knowing all likely enemy’s future plan(s)(for example if they didn’t scout and they are a competent high rated player you know they won’t risk attacking a point that as far as they are concerned will be highly secure), mineral(s)/woodline(s) position awareness ect. key point awareness.

(areal)awareness5% also includes the skills of "trapping" unit(s) with same speed units or slower, map control, woodline/working men positioning, attack planning, scouting, outposts, targeting enemy awareness(targeting enemy scouts/outposts).

 

the % of relevant stats for a player might be mildly confusing but I think I wrote it quite clearly and it should be understandable .Of course not all pros are just good at those specific proportions for example Valihrant is highly reduced multitasking(10%+?) but insane micro his endurance is huge but slightly less than feld and borgs I’d guess 5%- less(5% of the borg/feld total stamina) although right now I’m sure his stamina is even larger than those 2s stamina as those 2 don’t play much recently.

 

He is unmatched in micromanaging things and sustaining this insane micro use with much less stamina cost than anyone else in 0ad.

Although you could argue that maybe he is just incorrectly using his stamina by exhausting himself with extremely costly micro abuse.

In that case maybe his stamina is 50% larger than borg or felds and he’s just not using it wisely but I don’t think that’s the case people usually naturally intuitively lean in the most efficient direction as they progress and improve over time.

You can tell while he plays he occasionally forgets houses ect. and during a game randomly keeps quickly turning to random usually multitasking tasks as if they were an enemy attack.

 An extremely high level multitasking player wouldn’t forget simple variables ever even in the most exhausted state as a high level multitasking player has such low multitasking stamina cost.

An extremely high level multitasking player wouldn’t need to with such high speed/intensity manage his eco or adjust it as it would all come to him naturally. 

You can see in the way he thinks in commentary his style is really not about saving as much energy as possible with minimal micro/improvisation/high intensity and expending stamina in a calculated manner.

Stuff like being aggressive, constant high intensity high harass often with small amount of cav exchanging your stamina for enemy’s stamina with the one with superior micro suffering far less in stamina loss but this has no other ulterior motive like a clear strategic plan towards victory) ect.

The few cav often highly outnumbered by enemy woodline forces stands no chance of directly attacking the enemy or scaring enemy off the woodline making him lose position thru simple proportion of strength its simply human error exploitation based play not error of something relating to intelligence but of something simpler, micro.

 

This isn’t multitasking as the tasks that are often optional but are still preferred by the micro type player.

The tasks are too complex and frequent this is all conscious all on the surface of the mind at once functioning in conscious clarity aka micro.

More like fighting or playing basketball 1 one 1 or a simple FPS? than lets say umm what preserves alot of capacity for a calculated use? a caveman hunter gatherer? I’m getting off point...

There’s a strategy style of defense : defend ,progress with perfect security and look for an opening,  an advantage to expend your saved capacity through and there’s a strategy style of offence : keep attacking and exhausting the opponent wait for HIM to make a mistake you can take advantage of to secure the victory offensive style.

Of course  most players fall in the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badosu said:

Is this what 0ad copypasta looks like?

hah! u read it 

also i thought putting this part separately in general with an accurate title would be better as some ppl might wanna read on this subject while not being interested in reading my reaction to valis video.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thankforpieOfficial said:

major factor that makes players OP in majority of games is mastering one of stronger race/character/civilization/class/whatever

this is true in any game that exists, Dota, LoL, 0AD..

Does not apply in 0 A.D. nor in AoE2

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Feldfeld i mean ppl clearly overplay the stronger civs and are generally highly unimaginative in their gameplay which makes sense because they cant afford to do otherwise as they are weak/incompetent in one way or another.I suppose that applies to pretty much everything even life itself.Humans rarely pop out high quality enough to be able to gain maximum results by being highly open minded .Wherever you look,wherever you go anyone doing anything even someone you admire has cut corners in a magnificent manner to compromise for their own incompetence.Briliance and perfection isnt real isnt admired isnt valued in human minds its not even an ideal image a dream a measure point for the philosophical final destination its so far away that the weakness that embodies a human or more percisely humans are the vessles of weakness themselves it resents even the theoretical possibility of Brilliance and perfection hates it more than all else and uses every vile trick to potray it as less than.It makes sure that humans dont even believe in its existence,give its name to accomplishments that are slightly less pathetic than most and that too purely by chance.Humans dont want briliance they wanna die in peace human greatest desire is to never be so darned* and unfortunate as to have to face the horrors of the potential and the theoretical.

Edited by vinme
misspelled "darn" it autocorrects dam* to darn
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vinme said:

@Feldfeld i mean ppl clearly overplay the stronger civs and are generally highly unimaginative in their gameplay which makes sense because they cant afford to do otherwise as they are weak/incompetent in one way or another.I suppose that applies to pretty much everything even life itself.Humans rarely pop out high quality enough to be able to gain maximum results by being highly open minded .Wherever you look,wherever you go anyone doing anything even someone you admire has cut corners in a magnificent manner to compromise for their own incompetence.Briliance and perfection isnt real isnt admired isnt valued in human minds its not even an ideal image a dream a measure point for the philosophical final destination its so far away that the weakness that embodies a human or more percisely humans are the vessles of weakness themselves it resents even the theoretical possibility of Brilliance and perfection hates it more than all else and uses every vile trick to potray it as less than.It makes sure that humans dont even believe in its existence,give its name to accomplishments that are slightly less pathetic than most and that too purely by chance.Humans dont want briliance they wanna die in peace human greatest desire is to never be so darned* and unfortunate as to have to face the horrors of the potential and the theoretical.

yes

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, vinme said:

@Feldfeld i mean ppl clearly overplay the stronger civs and are generally highly unimaginative in their gameplay which makes sense because they cant afford to do otherwise as they are weak/incompetent in one way or another.I suppose that applies to pretty much everything even life itself.Humans rarely pop out high quality enough to be able to gain maximum results by being highly open minded .Wherever you look,wherever you go anyone doing anything even someone you admire has cut corners in a magnificent manner to compromise for their own incompetence.Briliance and perfection isnt real isnt admired isnt valued in human minds its not even an ideal image a dream a measure point for the philosophical final destination its so far away that the weakness that embodies a human or more percisely humans are the vessles of weakness themselves it resents even the theoretical possibility of Brilliance and perfection hates it more than all else and uses every vile trick to potray it as less than.It makes sure that humans dont even believe in its existence,give its name to accomplishments that are slightly less pathetic than most and that too purely by chance.Humans dont want briliance they wanna die in peace human greatest desire is to never be so darned* and unfortunate as to have to face the horrors of the potential and the theoretical.

what leads you to that conclusion? I'm overplaying kushites - does it mean  kush are stronger civ?...  again 0 facts here

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thankforpieOfficial said:

does

e.g gauls,ptoles,brits,roms

are most often played civs

and they win more often than other civs

ill try rating atleast top 5 civs by points just by guessing with trying to keep 100 the average between all ingame civs:

pto 113

gau 107

brit 107

rome 104

athen 103

sparta 103

im not as sure about the rest but here goes:

iber 102

sele 102

mayu 95

pers 94

carth 93

kush 91

mace 86

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vinme Rationale for civ ratings unclear, please describe the thought process and calculations performed (in a single paragraph if possible).

The 0ad community thanks you.

Edited by badosu
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, badosu said:

@vinme Rationale for civ ratings unclear, please describe the thought process and calculations performed (in a single paragraph if possible).

The 0ad community thanks you.

rationale is my intuition and understanding from watching/playing thousands of games.while i dont play many civs my enemys play a variety of civs so i have many iterations of expiriences.i look at 2 civs and think hmm how much better is civ a compared to civ b and other civs in general % wise? then i make a guess and i do this for every single civ.eventually i end up with all civs numbered then i repeat again thinking hmm is civ a better than civ b more than civ b is better than civ c? ect  ofc some civs counter others so i cant do an exact guess so ill guess an average in relation to all 12 other civs.also i consider advantages and disadvantages while considering potential great strats but not going too far into the theoretical.for example: celts have op eco mainly because of all wood buildings,early on the pop bonuses from all buildings and faster buildable buildings.theres also melonas 25% food building. but celts have no ranged siege and their buildings are weak.rome doesnt have some op bonuses but is an amazing civ.rome is probably the most flexible civ with the most options. ect. you get my point.

after all this i just fix it up so proportions stay the same but average is 100.yes this is just a guess and only filter is me looking at it and thinking:does this make sense? but i think this graph represents reality quite accurately.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 3:58 PM, thankforpieOfficial said:

does

e.g gauls,ptoles,brits,roms

are most often played civs

and they win more often than other civs

It's not what's going to make you good. The top 3 players know how to play all civs with only very small differences in mastering (and like to play their 1v1s with random civs), meanwhile players that only know how to play 1 civ (typically brit) still had much to learn. Or at least it was the case until some months ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...