Yeah back when I made the mistake of going to college I used to play nwn probably 10 hours a day, had a 20-30 hr week job and 15 hr week school, should be easy to figure out why college was a mistake.

Thanks for the interesting responses, its pretty interesting to see old player derust. Even when i stopped playing for a few months i though i would not remember anything, but i kinda just did it without thinking about it.

i'm 42. so every game is some kind of a derust game

I am 5 years old and I doesnt know what i forget there.

Current 18 years - 1800 G/L peak
Started in 2016 (14-15 years) and it took me 1year+ to get into 1800 G/L ratings.

Rate of increase in skill is individual. It depends more on the experience of the games in which you played. I only play strategies, and it was very easy for me to adapt to the large-scale realtime game, but again, this is only one aspect of a successful "career" of the player, another equally important aspect is training, this game requires constant training. The maps changes, the balance changes, progress or regression, nothing stands still. And in order to somehow keep up with all this stuff, you need to devote time to this game.

i am 22,have been around for quite some time but i wouldn't way that there is a difference between ages and skill distribution.
I've seen 45 years old guys that are around 2k rating just as 1.2k guys that are 13 y.o.
It all depends on your will and the moment you want to get competitive-you will get better since supcom isn't that hard especially when the meta lasts from 1 to 3 years.

I'm 28 and 1200.
I also have older friends who play:
33y, 600
33y, 900
30y, 900
37y, 400

36 and 750 ladder, global underplayed and meaningless.
In 2013 I was 28 and 1200 global

In 2013 ladder became separate rating from global, as 1v1 players were overrated for global.

Well, i am 51 and my global rating after 14 years of plying is 0 (never played a rated game)

I play rts games since 1992 (Dune) and i have no clue how skilled i am.
At least it's enough to code an AI for SupCom

about 2100 ladder and 2000 global.
It feels like i am getting worse, but learning new hotkeys and using new UI mods compensates for that.
Also now i play alot less than i could when i was a student or at school.
I bouht supcom as soon as it came out, not sure if i can count my game amount. I was playing LAN, VPN (tunngle, garena, hamachi), GPGnet mostly on one account but i had two more with few games, then fa-ladder games.
and only after that i had (according to website) 2575 global games and 3551 ladder games and afaik it only counts ones that were rated

also started my RTS journey with Dune 2

I wonder if there's a way to compensate for increased game difficulty and higher average player skill. (Trust me, faf is tougher to play and people are better at it now versus 10 years ago)

@funkoff said in Age vs Skill:

I wonder if there's a way to compensate for increased game difficulty and higher average player skill. (Trust me, faf is tougher to play and people are better at it now versus 10 years ago)

If the average skill increases but yours stays the same, your rating will drop. There already is a system in place to compensate.

35

Peaked at 1820 ladder like 3 or 4 years ago, have been struggling to stay relevant at 1600-1800 (yeah, I go between 200 points like every month) as work gets more involved, family ,etc... I was like 2k when Supp Comm vanilla was out, but I was 20-22 then. I would say the "20-ish" age is about peak, cause at 22-23 you graduate university (unless you are cool and don't go to school like ThomasHiatt) and go to the working world, start to learn about the fun of waking up early and spending ~8-9 hours using all your brainpower; once you get home it is a bit taxing to try and play competitively.

Lesson of the thread: when you start working a real job you lose the ability to play video games well cause you don't got mommy and daddy making you food no more, there is no food court, and irl takes over a lot more.

@femtozetta That doesn't address my first point. FAF today is harder to play that Supcom was on release in 2007. It is easily 10x harder to play. And the average community member is 100x more skilled. (Most the noob trash left 10 years ago, and 99% of the rest of left since)

In regards to the conversation for skill changing over time, the other day I took a look at my POV replays from 2012. No hotkeys, no UI mods... I was either +200E or -200E for the first 10 minutes of the game. No eco skills or any sort of plan/direction visible in my gameplay. Reclaim was hardly prioritized. Efficiency wasnt discovered yet. Micro was poor. Multitasking/prioritizing was out of balance. Builds were non-existent. All I knew how to do was drag a line of factories down the map and win at t1 stage. And somehow that was good enough for 2k 1v1 ladder. Times have changed for sure. 2021 Tex could play a BO99 with 2012 Tex and do a clean sweep in 50 games. Overall average FAF skill is much higher now then it was in the old days.

I'm 19, roughly 2000 at peak. Started getting better really fast late 15 and throughout 16 as I started spamming ladder. kindof started to stagnate after that but that's because i've either just reached my personal skill ceiling or due to lack of motivation

@noundedelkwoob as i said when we played earlier i suffer from the motivation as it seems getting good at 1v1 is complicated and slightly unrewarding compared to more chill games such as phantom or internal modded games. I love the feeling of brutally crushing a bunch of people in those games and hate the feeling of being brutally crushed in 1v1. Rn im trying to play games with very good players as to improve from seeing what they do right and i do wrong. Its better than fighting 1ks and winning half the time. It is hard to find high rated people to play though.

@tex said in Age vs Skill:

In regards to the conversation for skill changing over time, the other day I took a look at my POV replays from 2012. No hotkeys, no UI mods... I was either +200E or -200E for the first 10 minutes of the game. No eco skills or any sort of plan/direction visible in my gameplay. Reclaim was hardly prioritized. Efficiency wasnt discovered yet. Micro was poor. Multitasking/prioritizing was out of balance. Builds were non-existent. All I knew how to do was drag a line of factories down the map and win at t1 stage. And somehow that was good enough for 2k 1v1 ladder. Times have changed for sure. 2021 Tex could play a BO99 with 2012 Tex and do a clean sweep in 50 games. Overall average FAF skill is much higher now then it was in the old days.

If you play your BO99 on random maps, the result will probably be somewhat even.

Whenever people go on about how the level nowadays is "much higher", they dont understand that this is driven by repetition of maps and BO specification, and potentially better UI mods. Those improvements can be easily learned (and as easily forgotten during a break).

The decision making, the efficiency, the game understanding et al has not increased whatsoever (at the highest lvl this game has to offer). This is plainly illustrated by fully inactive briefly returning players. When I look at my POVs from 2013, I see a superior player, faster, more efficient, more aware. Its nice that you have gotten better, I havent. I dont even know how to cloak a selen anymore because it got changed and I'm too old and soft to adapt to it.

You especially, as evidenced from your comments on streams, seem to think that the old players are some kind of inferior species. While I do share this arrogance (just the other way around), it is not correct. The level of a game generally is set by a few select of driving individuals defining the meta and the quality of play. Others will catch up and try to match them, but as long as no incredibly dominant new force emerges, the level of play does not significantly rise.

FAF still has the oldass circuit of pros. There is no player that has played less than 2 years and is good, and the "absolute top" is still composed of the same people from 5-10 years ago. Do you think they have gotten much better? I dont think so.

Blackheart to toot my own horn here. Not make a statement here either way:
But two SCTA Showmatches-
TAG_Rock vs Boom-
Natas Vs Zlo and Banana

Rock was my understanding considered a high quality player back in GPG and he prepped for the event by practicing the mods and several maps. Now factional balance and my clearly amazing understanding of this game all have an effect on this.

Rock lost 4 of 5 games vs Yeed. Now Rock didn’t do poorly in those games. In all fairness. But its not like he came back a week earlier and did zero prep.

Natas vs Zlo and Banani was also fascinating. Natas did some prepping, but he wasn’t as adaptable. And still put a good name for himself.

Both of these players, Rock espacially was a classic FA GPG/FAF pro. And I don’t honestly see the massive difference of skill level. On some level while by extension.

You could argue both of them being able to take games off Boom and Banana whom are not l33t by average joe standards are definetely high quality/strong players as evidence as old pros raw skills. It to me personally says if those had prepped more or prepped better, or factions were equal. The matches would be closer to an even split. Player quality hasn’t gone up in raw sense player ability to do quality gameplay has gone up. Which I know makes no sense

@Blackheart - I said 2k ladder not 2300 ladder. There is a world of difference between the two as you well know

You are saying skill when it comes to the very top of the ladder. I was saying skill as a general statement. I mean, look at Zock, the dude is a beast. Has been and always will be. Zock could beat me 10-0 then and 10-0 now, after a brief unrusting. His gameplay analysis videos still hold up today as hands down the best 'how to play faf' in terms of decision making. Its just really hard to compare top level skill in a game that only ever has 1-5 players at a time being truly dominant.

I am just stating that on average, most of your players these days do much better then their counterparts from the early days of faf. I don't really care how much of that is due to game sense/decision-making skill or how much of it is due to better builds/meta/UI/hotkeys/eco balance, I stand by the fact that for all but the top 0.1% of faf, the players are much improved. The fact that back then I could be as high rated as I was with such a limited skill set illustrates as much. But to your point, that is also why I was never at the top level of faf.

Maybe instead of using the term skill I should be saying gameplay or relative strength. 1800's still make stupid decisions for sure, but they are now doing so with more units, higher eco efficiency, and better micro.