Git Gud- The Skill Plateau

This is one of the less talked about gaming topics, but, in my experience, almost every player regardless of game, runs into it.  The players that either never experience it or drive themselves to overcome it are generally the best players in a given meta or even the world.

When you start a game everything is new.  There's a steep learning curve as there's a lot to take in above and beyond the basic rules.  These factors can be common lists, strategies, in FPS games it can be map layouts, in RPG it's how to build a character and what equipment you need etc.  As you learn these factors, you get better at the game and steadily improve you ability to use your own elements.  Then you have to start learning the elements your opposition is likely to use and finally you'll have at least a good grasp of this factor.  But then something happens.  You stop getting better.  You just lose to the same players/lists/enemies/whatever over and over again.  This is the skill plateau, the point at which your skills are no longer improving just by virtue of learning game elements.  There are a number of reactions to hitting this plateau from getting frustrated with the game and quitting, to calling the game broken and everything OP to just camping out on the plateau and accepting your fate.  In my experience, most players that stick with a game long enough hit this point. This, of course, prompts the next question: 

How do you get past the plateau?

It's important to note that, at this point, just getting games in won't be enough because it's likely the lens by which you're viewing those games has flaws that are keeping you from understanding them properly.  The key, based on that, is refining your lens i.e. you have to look at the game a different way.  When you  were learning everything initially you developed ways to evaluate your victories and defeats even if you didn't realize it....but, at that point, you didn't have the criteria to create accurate metrics for yourself and you've probably been running on those same criteria.  This is interesting because a lot of how good you get before hitting the plateau is based on your initial experiences.  If you jump head first into a shark tank of a meta, you'll get the crap beat out of you a lot, but you'll also have a more accurate lens to evaluate games.  If you just go super casual and play against other super casuals, you're going to plateau earlier and at a much lower skill level because your lens is so far off from the competitive aspect of the game.  This is why you'll sometimes run into players that will make awesome statements about how they've been playing since the stone age and be simultaneously baffled at how crap they are at the game.

So how do you adjust the focus?

The general rule I've always used when I noticed my own skills weren't improving is to remove variables.  Anyone that knows me, has definitely seen a pattern in that I'll frequently play single lists, decks whatever for extended periods of time.  Removing the variable of the list allows you to assess other factors.  Where possible, things that remove RNG (random factors) from the equation are also good as they allow you remove that from your analysis.  The thing is, your list, deck whatever is not important.  All it needs to do is be basically competent and present you with the opportunity to evaluate various aspects of the game without having to constantly re-adjust for the variable of your list.  Also, getting better will eventually allow you to fine tune this aspect as well.  The list just needs to be good enough. 

For me, when I moved from X-Wing 1.0 just being a side game that I had been playing for a while to more of a main game, I started playing Rey/Norra a lot.  The list was generally good enough for most matches, but, more importantly for me, also had a lot of dice fixing (Norra literally made her own dice).  This allowed me a lot of freedom to re-contextualize games since I knew what list I had and generally what the dice results would be which meant breaking down a lot of factors that I simply hadn't put enough thought into before.  Things like, turn 0, deployment, when to joust, how and when to turn around, maneuvering large bases, when to kite, how aggressive to be.  Once you have to look at every encounter in terms of maneuvering, asteroids and deployment because other factors like lists/dice don't change it helps to focus the lens by which you are viewing the game a lot.

The biggest failing I've seen of players hitting the plateau is constantly changing lists.  You'll see this happen, the player that goes from one net list to another with no real understanding and they never perform particularly well with any of them.  A lot of these net lists were created by players who play and view the game so differently, that a player who's stuck will never get full value out of even the best list in the game.

"There is no plan, we're losing"

At a team tournament for Warhammer, two friends of mine were involved in a game that was going quite poorly.  One of them asked "What's the plan?" to which the other responded "There is no plan, we're losing." 

It's important to go into any game with a plan for success.  This involves your win condition i.e. at what point do you just win.  An example of this would be Norra vs. most other single ships.  There were only a few ships in tX-Wing 1.0 that could actually put meaningful damage through Norra's defensive tech, so generally if it's tank Norra vs. one other poor bastard, she usually won.  It's also important to be able to recognize things that will interfere with your win condition and come up with a plan to deal with those.  For example, if I saw an enemy Poe, I didn't want him to be in the 1v 1 with Norra, so he's the highest priority to kill and, even if it's costly, if it gets me to my win condition, it doesn't matter.

It's always odd when I see a player basically just take the game I give them.  Like if I offer a joust and they readily accept, that's usually the point where I start running the math on whether or not I'm wrong for committing to the joust, but frequently it just boils down to them not realizing how poor the joust option was.  Just remember, if both players want to joust, one of you is wrong.  It's also odd when I play games like Warmachine and my opponent doesn't seem at all determined to reach out and touch the models I'm trying to protect.  Again, this calls me to question whether I'm overvaluing my models or they lack a good option to reach into the backfield...or sometimes they're just bad at the game and will aimlessly punch whatever you put in front of them because they have no real plan for victory, they're just rolling dice.

It's also important to guess your opponent's plan.  Why are they setup like they are?  Are they going to come at you, or try to play keep away?  What are pieces you need to remove to throw their plan off?  What is their target priority on your ships?  Where do you think they want to fight?  If you do this consistently, you'll notice something weird happening, you'll start being right and you'll also do this without specifically having to think about it.

"Why you move there?  How long you play this game"

At the World Team Championships for Warmachine, a Canadian player walked his warcaster, Sorcha, onto a hill with Fog of War active making her functionally DEF 20 against shooting and magic.  His opponent ran an arc node up and threw 2 hellfires, need 14's on 3D6 to hit, landed both of them and killed Sorscha for the win.  If you don't feel like doing the math, that's a really unlikely assassination.  Then the other player from the Russian team says "Why you move there?  How long you play this game?  I been playing six months, I best player in Russia.  Why you not move Croes to block line of sight?"  Spoiler, Croes have Stealth and wouldn't have blocked line of sight anyways.  It's unclear if the guy was serious or just trolling, but it's a great example of a problem players at the plateau frequently have i.e. not properly evaluating victories.

This is, without a doubt, the most underrated skill in gaming.  Players frequently write off wins as the normal way things are supposed to be and only really look at losses.  Even after a victory, there are a lot of important questions to ask yourself (or your opponent if they're up for it).  Was it luck?  Could you do that again?  Did you make any brilliant moves?  If so, what made them brilliant?  Did your opponent make mistakes?  If so, do you think they would make them again?  If they hadn't, how would it have changed the game?  Was your plan successful?  If not, why? Did you have to modify it?  Is it worth looking at adding that modification to the core plan?  If not, what would make it less ideal into other match-ups?  Did you have parts of the list doing nothing?  If so, how could you adjust it through play?  If you can't adjust it through play, what would've been better for the points?  How would you have tried to beat your list with your opponent's?

I definitely notice players that are actually trying to get better because frequently after a game where they get manhandled, they'll ask for advice about what they should've done.  I'm usually fine offering this advice because it forces me to do what I should be doing and look closely at my own victory.  Weirdly enough, I don't usually ask my opponents, but that's only because I like to figure things out for myself through trial and (a lot) of error.

This all may seem like a lot of work, but trust me, do it enough and you'll start to do it without even trying and there's a great sense of accomplishment to finally getting past the plateau and figuring things out.  And, who knows, you may finally beat that local player that always trounces you.