Expertise in Fighting Games
Skill, Modelled
•
A Spectrum Beyond Ranks
These ‘levels’ are a bastardization of Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus’ “skill acquisition model” and Martin M. Broadwell’s “Teaching for Learning” (often referred to as the “Four Stages of Competence”) and works built off of them. These are not belts at a dojo, or third party pngs, they are notches on a spectrum to help objectively define the general extent of one’s skill (instead of placements & accomplishments). This is not the end-all-be-all, but a loose framework to view this topic.
Novice:
- Does not understand common rules: range & option association, positive/negative/punishable, throw functionality, common lvl 0 tactics/options (jump, sweep, DI, jump in -> throw)
- No analysis or decision making beyond their own desires: "I want, so I do"
- Things "work" or "don't work", this sucks.
Advanced Beginner:
- Understands common rules of the game, responsive to environment feedback: Things are "working" or "not working", but why?
- Fairly unstructured gameplay: Gets caught up in one-off play patterns, sucked into opponents game ("They keep doing 'x', I'm going to beat it!")
- Conscious analysis and decision making, but not yet aware of opponent ("Look at the screen 👁️👄👁️")
- Many unforced errors: Defaults to high risk answers (random bullshit go), doesn't want to block
- Few, mostly sub optimal, punishes
Intermediate:
- Attempts to develop some kind of consistent, lower risk game plan.
- Recognizing risk reward: acknowledging resources, respecting reversals, baiting options
- Conscious (specific) analysis and decision making: aware of opponent, but doesn't have all the answers ("They're jumping, I need an AA option" AAs, forgets the ground game, eats 2MK x DR after)
- Making unforced errors: flustered by unfamiliar but common game situations
- Missing punishes: not always prepared/anticipating, but fairly optimal when ready
- Beginning to force/direct opponent options/decision making
Proficient:
- Gameplay revolves around guiding/conditioning their opponents choices through consistent, structured tactics (meso). Able to execute several layers deep
- Character strength is becoming a minor limiting factor.
- Conscious (general) analysis & decision making: Summarizes opponent habits & knows the answers ("In the air, anti-air" spaces to minimize ground game )
- Playing to resource & game scenarios (rounds, layers/situations ahead)
- Very few missed punishes (at least prepared/attempts to do so on timing even if it actually misses)
- Very few unforced errors
- Forcing opponent errors
Expert:
- Gameplay revolves around conditioning & deceiving opponent with full meta-encompassing strategies (macro)
- Character potential maximized, character strength is becoming significant limiting factor
- Unconscious analysis & decision making: Knows, executes and rotates/adapts full circle of meta answers in attempt to pace 1 layer ahead
- No unforced errors
- No missed punishes
Master:
- Discovering either new branches from existing layers or new layers altogether, pushing their own strategy beyond the commonly executed expert meta, at times redefining rules of play
- [Subjective] Performs consistently (relative to their peers) at a world class level of competition [top 4 at large majors at an alarming rate]. At this point you do need to proof of results to stand out. Everything feels like it's theirs to lose.
- Level hard to maintain from tournament to tournament, meta to meta. Often defined as "eras": Watson+Choi/SF2, Daigo/Capcom early 2000s, Justin/side games mid-late 2000s, Punk/SFV 2017 (And single hit confirming as a focused strategy), Arslan/end of t7 (Intro of Pakistani Tekken to the world), Kakeru+Mena+Leshar/ early SF6, sonicfox/exists
