News / Member Culture

Scores don't really mean anything about game skill.

Are you sure about that? All the top 50 in the HoF seem to be pretty skilled to me.

i wasn't meaning to argue. its just annoying.

and as far as me being below 150 in the hall of fame, i REALLY need to finish Aquatica haha

Are you sure about that? All the top 50 in the HoF seem to be pretty skilled to me.

Yeah, but I am sure there are many good parkmakers that don't have that high of a ranking. Anyone can raise their ranking up, it isn't that hard and let's not forget point whoring. Plus there are different views on skill, some people have weaknesses or strengths with foliage, ideas, atmosphere, architecture, layout, planning, speed, originality, etc. There are different opinions on skill also. I know I am no where near the best, but my opinion is the same as anyone's. Why do you think some parks have scores all over the place. I had a submission (not a very good one) and someone voted a high gold, and another voted a 5. Just because one has a score above 150 doesn't mean they are bad at the game. New comers receive much criticism. You can't put a little kid in the Olympics and expect him to win a gold.

Yeah, but I am sure there are many good parkmakers that don't have that high of a ranking. Anyone can raise their ranking up, it isn't that hard and let's not forget point whoring. Plus there are different views on skill, some people have weaknesses or strengths with foliage, ideas, atmosphere, architecture, layout, planning, speed, originality, etc. There are different opinions on skill also. I know I am no where near the best, but my opinion is the same as anyone's. Why do you think some parks have scores all over the place. I had a submission (not a very good one) and someone voted a high gold, and another voted a 5. Just because one has a score above 150 doesn't mean they are bad at the game. New comers receive much criticism. You can't put a little kid in the Olympics and expect him to win a gold.

You had an almost coherent argument, and then you posted that last sentence, destroying it all.

Of course you can't. Because he's not good enough. Same thing applies.

I was stating that of course they may not be good enough, but you cannot compare someone from two different groups, it's like cats and dogs. Besides, with enough practice and experience, anyone can have a potential to be the best.

But seriously, I'll stop before I get into an argument.

so... let's all get back to that now.

To me there's no skill with rct it's just the amount of patients and motovation one has to build

Is there no skill in architecture and designing things in real.life also?
And is the ability to do certain hacks not a skill. I mean most of the things in rct require a certain amount of knowledge if you want to make them. And also it often requires experience so you know how to build it the best. A combination of knowledge and experience sound to me like skills.

with enough practice and experience, anyone can have a potential to be the best.

With the evil truth that some simply have great talents and turn their firstie work into an accolade, and their second into a spotlight, plus having a huge influence on everyone's building style.

Nevis or PyroPenguin come to mind.

With the evil truth that some simply have great talents and turn their firstie work into an accolade, and their second into a spotlight, plus having a huge influence on everyone's building style.

Nevis or PyroPenguin come to mind.

First submission != first work.

-ACE

I just wanted to say some people improve more rapidly than others.

^agreed.

and whoaa posix you're in the UK now?

I just wanted to say some people improve more rapidly than others.

True, and some people are born stronger and smarter than others, but with enough determination, the weaker man will be more powerful than the more successful, and that applies to anything. We aren't primitive anymore.

Well, sooner or later it will occur to you that you have to question this idealism.

What idealism, that anyone without physical limitations has the potential to be good at something?

It happens very rarely but i agree with Jag on that front

It may be idealism but I believe that even GigaG has potential. It may take him\me years to unlock it but its possible.

While practice and determination will indeed take most people to new levels, some are simply born with talent and some aren't. It's very rare that you see a competent musician that's tone-deaf. Or a pro athlete that's inherently clumsy and uncoordinated. And the same applies to artistic ability. Some people come by it naturally and some people, no matter how hard they try and how many hours/years they apply themselves, will just never even reach a competent level at certain things. You can teach method but, you can't teach talent.

While practice and determination will indeed take most people to new levels, some are simply born with talent and some aren't. It's very rare that you see a competent musician that's tone-deaf. Or a pro athlete that's inherently clumsy and uncoordinated. And the same applies to artistic ability. Some people come by it naturally and some people, no matter how hard they try and how many hours/years they apply themselves, will just never even reach a competent level at certain things. You can teach method but, you can't teach talent.

Bullshit.

"Talent", such as it is, separates the 99th percentile from the 98th. Below that point it is irrelevant. Time and effort matter. ACTUAL time and effort. Who's going to get better in a year: the basketball player who practices two hours a night, or the player who practices before dinner, after dinner, first thing in the morning, right after lunch...? Both have practiced for "a year", but the second sure put in a hell of a lot more time and effort. And that's what matters.

For an artistic example: know why the Beatles were so damn good? Before they made it, they spent about a year in a half in Germany, playing most every night, covering hundreds of songs in every genre. They played more in this span of time than most bands *EVER* play over their entire careers. So obviously they got very, very good. Time and effort.

To put in that effort requires a passion for whatever you're doing. If you don't LOVE basketball, you won't be able to make yourself put in the time long enough. If you don't love playing music, you won't play every night. That's fine. But it's not because you weren't gifted by talent.

-ACE

I agree with K0NG completely. I think calling his position "Bullshit" is rather ignorant.

Bullshit.

"Talent", such as it is, separates the 99th percentile from the 98th. Below that point it is irrelevant.

So, you're saying that even the clumsiest, most awkward, un-athletic kid on the block can reach that 98th percentile if he/she puts in enough time and effort? No. Some people are genetically disposed to be more athletic than others. And some people simply don't have a "God-given" athletic bone in their body. Or that the kid that can barely manage to put together a stick figure so that it's recognizable as something can be the next Picasso if he/she attends enough art classes and practices enough? Not gonna happen if they simply have no artistic abilities. Not every fat person overeats and not every skinny person starves themselves. It's genetics...simple as that.

I'm not saying that time and effort have nothing to do with it. Just that some people...and I'm not saying that this applies to everyone...but some people, no matter how much they try, are simply never going to be able to be even mediocre at certain things.

i'm going to have to agree with Kong on this one.

while there is some validity in your position jag, some people aren't going to be as good as others in certain things, regardless of how much time they put into it.