Moreover, denigrating someone because he is into a team based competition instead of something one on one is just stupid really.
I'm not saying that the game is shit or that it doesn't take skill... I'm saying that the skill in dota games is predominantly based on what you know about the game.
dota is much more about simply knowing how skills work. (learning an encyclopedia of game stats)
You cant say dota is easier than quake, they are both hard games in different aspects.
The games are just to different, and they are hard in their own aspect,
ill go as far and say that dota requires more of a person, than in quake, at the very toplevel just like starcraft.
pro football coaches that didn't play the game
the f1 was a huge straw man
somebody trying to understand something without being professional
Being a coach is not the same as watching, as being a coach he puts a lot of effort and greatly influences the game hence learns the response, therefore he actually has the experience beyond casual in the game.
You're still comparing chalk to cheese.
Nobody has mastered the mechanical side of dota fully. What I'm saying is that all the good players (say 5k+) do a majority of the skills in dota at 90+%, and the pros just do it a few percent better. It's the fact that there's a lot of these tiny compounding fails that everybody does that separates pros from the rest, but if we isolate almost any specific skill in dota, it's easy.
i learned how to strafejump within weeks, by the time that i had played for about 2.5-3 years in quake, i was able to outaim opponents well above 2k elo.
even fucking lasthitting can be difficult
you claim that everything in dota is easy, yet you're playing at fucking trashtier... because of choice? you dont honestly expect me to believe that, right?
whether bowling is easier than football isnt for me to judge, i havent the experience required in neither field. sure ive watched bowled a strike and a spare, but i wouldnt get that lucky however many times in a row to get a perfect game. really, i would have to a complete fool to speak to the merit of either one of them
yes, i do find everything in football easily managed.
i have scored goals when i was 9, therefor football is easy.
But the fact that most of the skills in the game are much nearer to being capped than in, say, starcraft, makes it an easy game.
"correct aim" would be 100% with hitscan weapons, etc.
I don't see how a larger scene approaching a skill cap faster is that much relevant.
we all still agree that some meals are harder to cook, some math is harder to learn, some knots are harder to tie. [...] How could you then conclude that all games are of equal difficulty?
Lowest skill is messy because some skills have no discrete lower limit. Let me demonstrate on the example of movement in quake: The fastest possible time to move from point A to point B shall be t_0. The slowest possible time to move from A to B is infinite. The best time that was ever recorded shall be t_1 > t_0. Now if we want to create a comparable measure for how capped out the skill is we need to calculate m_sc = (t_1 - t_0) / (inf - t_0). This will be messy.
For example someone might claim that Dota is at 95% skill-capped, Quake is at 50% skill-capped, thus Quake has to be the more difficult game. Now I will invent "Game X", which is only played by me and my retarded neighbor. Since both of us are not very talented at the game, we go above 25% of the skill-ceiling. Does that automatically make "Game X" harder than Quake?
I merely pointed out that "distance to skill cap" is not a suitable parameter to rate the difficulty of a game, firstly because it is very difficult to determine that parameter accurately and secondly because that method of rating is biased towards games with less competition.
method of rating is biased towards games with less competition.
It's not how I'd calculate how capped out a skill gap is. [...] it wouldn't even need to be a number you can calculate
Finally, there's the somewhat subjective, [...], just with what I said in this paragraph and knowledge about people's experience in the game.
That's one of the reasons why we go with percentiles rather than raw numbers.
What you mean by "capped out skill gap" is not clear at all.
This is exclusively subjective and various people might achieve different results. E.g. palatka has a different opinion and I guess he knows both games better than the both of us.
Unfortunately you missed the point complete. More competition = skill cap becomes smaller automatically