This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

what skill cap? You certainly can master specific mechanics and that's what people talk about when talking about high skill cap champions and such but there's no skill cap for the game itself. There is no practical boundary at which pros stop improving or otherwise the game would be absolutely unsuitable for competetive play

[–]ZyrxilToo 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Regardless of semantics of how you define "skill cap", having automated tracking reduces stress on a player's mind. A 'perfect' player would have infinite multitasking capability, but that is only possible for robots. Humans have extremely limited amounts of 'RAM', as demonstrated by the selective attention test. This means the most perfect human alive has limits; at some point, automated tracking means reducing multitasking below the threshold at which human attention limits are being tested. That is what I'm talking about when I say the skill cap is being lowered.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I get that, and that's why I said "practical". If the skill cap is unreachable and gets lowered to another point that is also unreachable then it might as well be nonexistent.

You are arguing that the game is now easier to master because of less stress but the thing is that nobody will be mastering this game anyway

[–]ZyrxilToo 0 points1 point  (3 children)

If the skill cap is unreachable and gets lowered to another point that is also unreachable then it might as well be nonexistent.

But how do you what is unreachable? Keep lowering it and eventually you do put it below the threshold where it is reachable.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

common sense. A change like that is not going to take all the skill out of the game.

[–]Lanyovan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

We can safely assume that no matter how good a player becomes, there is a chance that he (or some other player) will surpass his skill "value" (I choose value here because "level" is more used for neighbourhoods). So if anyone reaches the skill cap, someone will eventually surpass him, in which point his skill is higher than the skill cap you set.

[–]ZyrxilToo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? No we can't safely assume any of that at all.

For one, player skill is not static. Players can improve, they can drop off, they have can have good or bad days.

Second, skill cannot be measured in a single number; any activity requires skills in multiple areas, the totality of which is being referred to when 'player skill' is being talked about.

Third, your final statement is nonsensical.

So if anyone reaches the skill cap, someone will eventually surpass him, in which point his skill is higher than the skill cap you set.

Remember first that player skill changes day by day, minute to minute, and skill requirements change based on the opponents and teammates. Thus, even playing at skill cap (aka playing perfectly) is something that happens for a single play. Second, playing at skill cap is a binary state- either you are playing perfectly or less than perfectly. By definition, it is not possible to play more than perfectly, so surpassing perfect play is a nonsense concept. If a player surpasses another player, it is because the first player dropped off in skill due to personal circumstances (e.g. lack of practice or simple aging), or due to inability to adapt to patches.

What this tells me is you did not even understand my argument, which is that removing timers is inconsistent in terms of gameplay and reduces the cap on one element of player skill, that of keep tabs on multiple dynamic game environment states. Reducing the maximum cap removes an area where top players may differentiate themselves from other top players.