Quite a few of the front page asian players have only played about 2 years, and some with a play count of 40k-70k. I'm not sure if that's a impressive or not. Just thought I'd point it out.
forum
The Road to Cookiezi-Tier
posted
Total Posts
2,105
Refer back to what I said about practice methods mattering more than the amount of practice
Tess wrote:
Refer back to what I said about practice methods mattering more than the amount of practice
I did, but that's based on assumptions.
It's assumption, but it seems kinda reasonable and logical, kinda like the saying "quality over quantity". Even if someone played for 10 hours mindlessly mashing stuff that is too hard with no-fail on, or playing only easy maps, they probably wouldn't improve as much as someone that played for 5 hours playing actual material that will improve them.Ash Marley wrote:
Tess wrote:
Refer back to what I said about practice methods mattering more than the amount of practice
I did, but that's based on assumptions.
It's not really assumption considering that I've spent months trying out different practice methods and have found some to result in faster progress than others consistently, no matter in what stage of skill I was. So the only thing I'm assuming here is that a fact that applied to me will also apply to others
Perhaps you shouldn't have assumed that I was assuming more than you assumed I'd assume
I'm not sure how much of the following is 100% accurate, though I looked for reliable sources only. This is just what I found researching around the web. It's just something to think about. It has always been a big topic of debate about genetics and is argued for and against amongst the scientific community. No conclusive answer.
Visuospatial Perception: "it underlies our ability to move around in an environment and orient ourselves appropriately. Visuospatial perception is also involved in our ability to accurately reach for objects in our visual field and our ability to shift our gaze to different points in space." (1)
"North East Asians have tended to score relatively higher on visuospatial subtests with lower scores in verbal subtests while Ashkenazi Jews score higher in verbal and reasoning subtests with lower scores in visuospatial subtests." (2)
"East Asian children adopted by families of the European genetic clustering show higher median IQ’s than the nonadopted children of families of the European genetic clustering." - (so white parents who adopted an east asian child still results in higher IQ of the child).
"Arctic people, East Asians, Australian Aborigines and American Indians all have an elevated visual memory IQ." (3)
Reaction time: "When the results from different tasks are combined, as is also done in IQ tests, the correlation between IQ and reaction time is 0.6-0.7. Racial differences are found consistent with those from IQ testing. Just as for IQ these racial differences are largest on the tasks that best measure the g factor." - (So higher IQ correlates with a higher reaction time? I'm not sure if interpreted that correctly). (4)
(1) http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/3/visuospe.htm
(2) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 8D3.f04t02
(3) http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/iq_matters --- (originally referenced from Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence)
(4) http://benthamopen.com/openaccess.php?t ... TOPSYJ.htm
Visuospatial Perception: "it underlies our ability to move around in an environment and orient ourselves appropriately. Visuospatial perception is also involved in our ability to accurately reach for objects in our visual field and our ability to shift our gaze to different points in space." (1)
"North East Asians have tended to score relatively higher on visuospatial subtests with lower scores in verbal subtests while Ashkenazi Jews score higher in verbal and reasoning subtests with lower scores in visuospatial subtests." (2)
"East Asian children adopted by families of the European genetic clustering show higher median IQ’s than the nonadopted children of families of the European genetic clustering." - (so white parents who adopted an east asian child still results in higher IQ of the child).
"Arctic people, East Asians, Australian Aborigines and American Indians all have an elevated visual memory IQ." (3)
Reaction time: "When the results from different tasks are combined, as is also done in IQ tests, the correlation between IQ and reaction time is 0.6-0.7. Racial differences are found consistent with those from IQ testing. Just as for IQ these racial differences are largest on the tasks that best measure the g factor." - (So higher IQ correlates with a higher reaction time? I'm not sure if interpreted that correctly). (4)
(1) http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/3/visuospe.htm
(2) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 8D3.f04t02
(3) http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/iq_matters --- (originally referenced from Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence)
(4) http://benthamopen.com/openaccess.php?t ... TOPSYJ.htm
E m i
i maed an oopsie
It's nice how there's no value to that post other than trying to find something about me you can nitpick on
Never mind, I misread you.
I'll still challenge the notion that practice methods matter more than practice time though.
I'll still challenge the notion that practice methods matter more than practice time though.
Sure, how do you challenge them? Practice time is clearly important, since without it, you can't employ your methods, but if your methods aren't right, then your time will be wasted.
They're reliant of each other, but the methods used are crucial for higher efficiency (and thus productivity) with practice.
They're reliant of each other, but the methods used are crucial for higher efficiency (and thus productivity) with practice.
I challenge the claim that one of the two is objectively more important than the other, and even if you want to assume one is more important for the sake of discussion I'll challenge the claim that we have the ability to determine which is which; neither can exist in a vacuum, and we have no way to quantify the two in terms of each other, so comparison is impossible. I'll also challenge the value in determining which is more important on the grounds that the method new players gravitate towards, playing anything and everything basically at random, is close enough to optimal that the impact of such a determination would be negligible.
I posit that you should just practice more and practice right and call it a day. Also, Narrill brings up good points, even if they completely degenerate the discussion.
I agree with the part where you say (simplified) that time is useless with no method and a method is useless with no time, so you can't really weigh one against the other since it would be saying like your brain is more important than your heart. I was thinking about this as I wrote my last post but decided to post anyway since, despite method and time both being necessary for practice to occur, time can be put in without a well thought out method and requires no thinking behind it other than "k gonna play now". You actually have to experiment to find a good method and think about what would work best for you so that you can get the most out of your time.Narrill wrote:
I challenge the claim that one of the two is objectively more important than the other, and even if you want to assume one is more important for the sake of discussion I'll challenge the claim that we have the ability to determine which is which; neither can exist in a vacuum, and we have no way to quantify the two in terms of each other, so comparison is impossible. I'll also challenge the value in determining which is more important on the grounds that the method new players gravitate towards, playing anything and everything basically at random, is close enough to optimal that the impact of such a determination would be negligible.
So, to answer your points; On a level of necessity, time is objectively more important than method, because you can practice without thinking about a method, but you can't practice without putting in time.
When it comes to efficiency though, thinking about a method is objectively more important than putting in time for practice, since finding a useful method could give you the same results with 20 hours of practice that mindless spamming of shit would give you with 200 hours of practice, meaning that a good method could give you more time to achieve more results and thus improve faster than everyone else, which is what this whole game is about, or at least the ranked aspect of it.
How we're able to determine which is more important can be seen as above. There quite is a way to weigh the two against each other, just like there's a way to weigh aiming against tapping. You not seeing a way =/= there not being one.
The value in determining which is more important lies in that your grounds are plain wrong. Playing anything and everything at random does not give close to optimal results. If that were the case then thinking about effective practice methods wouldn't result in any more or less improvements and nobody would really be doing it since people who tried to do it would get discouraged very quickly, either through experience or by their peers. Planned, systematic practice is always more efficient than thoughtless chaotic random spam in trying to achieve a focused goal.
I don't see how you think that a chaotic approach to attaining a specific goal is close to optimal. It isn't so by definition.
"Because efficiency" isn't nearly concrete enough to be an answer to this question.Tess wrote:
How we're able to determine which is more important can be seen as above.
Ah, but the goal isn't nearly as focused as you think. I explained my viewpoint regarding optimal practice methods in the low AR thread.Tess wrote:
Playing anything and everything at random does not give close to optimal results. ... Planned, systematic practice is always more efficient than thoughtless chaotic random spam in trying to achieve a focused goal.
I don't see how you think that a chaotic approach to attaining a specific goal is close to optimal. It isn't so by definition.
I dont get why I cant be this good. I messed up somewhere along the line xD
You messed up by having a ten times lower playcount than him.ZenitH-AT wrote:
I dont get why I cant be this good. I messed up somewhere along the line xD
Seriously, what do people expect?
Narrill isn't even nitpicking much. 99% of what is discussed on these forums isn't even well defined for rigorous discussion.
settle it over cheatreal already
all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.
waste of time to type/read imoB1rd wrote:
all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.
I put the pages with walls of texts on them from these 2 in a bookmark folder and whip out ones i havent read yet to go through while im eating dinner or something, its become a hobby when theres not anything more interesting in my youtube subscriptions.Asiangodx2 wrote:
waste of time to type/read imoB1rd wrote:
all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.
Who's narril? Also Tess is a girl.B1rd wrote:
all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.
I still don't see the issue with walls of text on a discussion forum. Just go on IRC if you want less spammy shit???
oh wait #osu
When people call sayonara-bye "sayo", or thelewa "lewa", do you ask who that is? D:Narrill wrote:
Who's narril?B1rd wrote:
all you need is narril and one other guy and the forum will be spammed with walls of text.
lel it was joke chill bruhcheezstik wrote:
When people call sayonara-bye "sayo", or thelewa "lewa", do you ask who that is? D:
I knew it would annoy you if I didn't bother to spell you name properly. baited.
It doesn't really, I just think it's funny how badly people misspell it.
Dw I feel your pain, I'm forever being called cheesestick or cheezstick etc., it's almost like I'm the one that misspelled my actual name or something.Narrill wrote:
It doesn't really, I just think it's funny how badly people misspell it.
To think that this thread started 8 months ago, haha. Still supporting you from behind, and I'm also rising up in the ranks to catch up to you! c:
Topic Starter
Playing Persona Q when I should be studying for my Calculus final (which is tomorrow morning)
Apologies if I stopped updating this thread and not posting any of the recent youtube videos I've uploaded, I meant for it to die down.
The reason is simple, too many people asking me how to get good (when the fucking answer seriously is "play more"), yeah I try to be nice about it and give some specific details, but it's not looking too good for them if can't figure it out for themselves. So basically it has gotten to the point where attention whoring is now attracting a more bothersome kind of attention than any sort of praise to feed my ego (wow that sounds pompous as fuck).
Aside from the semester ending, I'll probably play again as soon as I 100% Persona Q on Risky Difficulty (which includes maps, compendium and New Game+ completion). The first dungeon took 7 hours alone @_@, probably should've made the New Game+ run on Risky Difficulty instead of the initial run. It'll take a while, but not nearly as long as my FFXII 100% run did.
Apologies if I stopped updating this thread and not posting any of the recent youtube videos I've uploaded, I meant for it to die down.
The reason is simple, too many people asking me how to get good (when the fucking answer seriously is "play more"), yeah I try to be nice about it and give some specific details, but it's not looking too good for them if can't figure it out for themselves. So basically it has gotten to the point where attention whoring is now attracting a more bothersome kind of attention than any sort of praise to feed my ego (wow that sounds pompous as fuck).
Aside from the semester ending, I'll probably play again as soon as I 100% Persona Q on Risky Difficulty (which includes maps, compendium and New Game+ completion). The first dungeon took 7 hours alone @_@, probably should've made the New Game+ run on Risky Difficulty instead of the initial run. It'll take a while, but not nearly as long as my FFXII 100% run did.
It's okay your thread is now a home for random offtopic banter. Also, it's actually neat that you're honest about it rather than pretend it's not what's going on. That's what would be pompous, in my eyes.
Also attention is only nice from people that know you and care about you. Attention from strangers sucks, especially in large amounts.
Also attention is only nice from people that know you and care about you. Attention from strangers sucks, especially in large amounts.
Woobowiz wrote:
(when the fucking answer seriously is "play more").
maybe they're asking how to get good because some people don't improve smoothly and effortlessly simply from playing more.
DeletedUser_4329079
No no, explaining things is badB1rd wrote:
maybe they're asking how to get good because some people don't improve smoothly and effortlessly simply from playing more.
Thinking about things is bad
Don't think, just do and hope you get lucky
just play more dude, trust me.
finding out how to improve is part of the learning process, if you need other people to tell you how to improve you will never be able to become the best.
Proper practice technique can be summed up in one sentence.Tess wrote:
No no, explaining things is bad
Thinking about things is bad
Don't think, just do and hope you get lucky