A generalization of Player Skill levels/criteria, reflected in a chart of damage output

@Jamesmor You are talking about what I refer to as "run and gunners".

Run and gunners are there to hop on a game, do tasks and leave again. They don't stick around, do research or do anything else that can be considered planning.

In my experience run and gunners gravitate towards games that scratch their action itch the best. This includes the popular shooting games, MOBA's and your battlegrounds. PSO2 is bad at scratching the itch they want (atleast in the current year) and so they won't really stick around for too long. But, I won't deny that they exist.

@kztm said in A generalization of Player Skill levels/criteria, reflected in a chart of damage output:

So you have not done any actual statistical analysis. It's just anecdotal. You don't even have support evidence or theory to show that your experience is representative of the population.

We all know how subjective impression cannot be trusted, no matter how many years you have played the game.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying your conclusions are wrong, I just want to make it clear that you actually don't have a basis to claim it's somewhat accurate. It's your anecdotal experience only. You mention there are lots of videos and parses, but have you aggregated those actual numbers and made an analysis? Are those videos are parses representative of the population? Obivously not.

You can say, "from my experience, I believe this graph roughly represents the player population." But you cannot say "this graph is somewhat accurate."

It might sound like nitpicking, but you are making a rather significant claim when using the words "somewhat accurate".

@Lapinoire There is a relatively strong data lake over at Quantic Foundary that would address this better, in my opinion.

The concept you're referring to is "mastery" and it is but one of a number of motivators that bring gamers to games.

A GDC talk that may interest you along with the capacity to generate your own profile (and be matched to games that meet your motivations) can be found there, too.

For those who may not know, Quantic Foundary is the baby/brain child of Nick Yee, an OG gaming and social theory researcher from pre-GUI internet days (i.e., TiA and SLiPKnot, and if you get those references, you may be as old as I am).

I believe they are now publishing reports ($$) on demographic alignments (i.e., persona, psychographics, etc) to their motivation factors and the statistical relevance thus far is impressive.

Enjoy:

http://quanticfoundry.com

Hope I'm in the Bad category.

Bad category suits me perfectly.

Saitama Ok

fixed it alt text

This is what we call a troll who is full of themselves. An "obversation" is not fact nor anything trustworthy. It's just one person's thoughts on a small and insignificant idea that they can't actually back up with real data. Most likely OP got smacked around and made fun of for some goof ups so decided to make a MSpaint chart to try and get their tormenters to be quiet, which only makes them laugh even more.

For those of you that think this is some sort of meme graph or whatever, you're not entirely wrong nor right: the graph pretty much exists to give people a general idea of where they fit, and once the person can identify what they fall under, the person can work towards improving to a hopefully better spot.

There is nothing wrong with being able to admit that you're bad, average, or good. We all start somewhere. Knowing yourself and your own capabilities is the first step to actual improvement. After that, you repeatedly bash your face against the wall(s) that you can't break yet, until you break them down. That's where you find actual improvement.

For those saying this is anecdotal, again, that's not entirely wrong. Observations are opinions/statements based on viewing/surveying others. To refute that, i'd have to post some form of parse results, which I obviously cannot do. Not much I can really say here.

What if I can’t beat Phaleg but have spent hours trying to learn it. Where does that put me?

@Cikia said in A generalization of Player Skill levels/criteria, reflected in a chart of damage output:

What if I can’t beat Phaleg but have spent hours trying to learn it. Where does that put me?

average i'd say

@Cikia said in A generalization of Player Skill levels/criteria, reflected in a chart of damage output:

What if I can’t beat Phaleg but have spent hours trying to learn it. Where does that put me?

Somewhere between bad and average. What matters is that you're trying to learn the fight, whereas others have given up.

The tenacity and willingness/drive to learn and improve is what sets bad/average/good players apart. Not everyone cares about improving, and those that do care will see improvement.

Just keep at it!

I take offense to the fact that you call me a mutant.

Well it's either mutant or sweaty, my friendo. :^)

I dont really identify myself as a whale as i only have spent $1.01 on this game but im glad to see that i dont need to whale to classify as a prodigy. working rly hard on getting my weekly TA rank 1s, but this is all due trail and error and its quite offensive on how you can classify others as such a role just because they "support the game" whaling is a bad life decision and people shouldnt be praised for it especially as to calling them good at the game.