Bemanistyle [dot] com Forums - View Single Post

Lentic · 06-15-2009, 01:21 PM

I'm seconding the notion that Stoic L7 is a good benchmark of skill.

I can pass most 9s, and a handful of 10s...my friend is around 7s, and I'm telling him "Once you pass Stoic on Normal, you'll know."

No, it's not the same as AA'ing an 11. But being able to consistently pass that song says "This guy is a dedicated IIDX player, he'll probably get better and better in a short amount of time."

Are we forgetting that IIDX is one of the most brutal music games out there? How can we say "ALRIGHT, IF YOU HAVE EXPERT TIMING ON ONE OF THE HARDEST SONGS IN ONE OF THE HARDEST GAMES EVER...then sure I'd call you good."

It doesn't matter that there are a shit ton of 10-dan players. There's nothing wrong with saying "Most IIDX players are extremely skilled and have a lot of dedication to the game." I'd say the same about most ITG players. IIDX, with all of its charts that are 7+, is CLEARLY geared towards people who have lots of experience with the game.

If we can't agree with that, then there should be two proxies for skill. 1) General skill. ("Yeah, that guy who can pass Stoic L7 is good.") and 2) Relative skill ("Passing Stoic L7? MY GRANDMOTHER COULD DO THAT. Talk to me again when you can AA AA [A]")

So what's the call? I contend that there is nothing wrong with saying "Most IIDX players kick ass at the game, but if you're passing 7s and 8s, you have a significant amount of dedication, you're good. Not AS good, but good.

06-15-2009, 01:21 PM	#14
Lentic //bemanistyle::[Member] Lentic is offline Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Seattle, WA Lentic's Collection Posts: 138 Marketplace Rating: 0	I'm seconding the notion that Stoic L7 is a good benchmark of skill. I can pass most 9s, and a handful of 10s...my friend is around 7s, and I'm telling him "Once you pass Stoic on Normal, you'll know." No, it's not the same as AA'ing an 11. But being able to consistently pass that song says "This guy is a dedicated IIDX player, he'll probably get better and better in a short amount of time." Are we forgetting that IIDX is one of the most brutal music games out there? How can we say "ALRIGHT, IF YOU HAVE EXPERT TIMING ON ONE OF THE HARDEST SONGS IN ONE OF THE HARDEST GAMES EVER...then sure I'd call you good." It doesn't matter that there are a shit ton of 10-dan players. There's nothing wrong with saying "Most IIDX players are extremely skilled and have a lot of dedication to the game." I'd say the same about most ITG players. IIDX, with all of its charts that are 7+, is CLEARLY geared towards people who have lots of experience with the game. If we can't agree with that, then there should be two proxies for skill. 1) General skill. ("Yeah, that guy who can pass Stoic L7 is good.") and 2) Relative skill ("Passing Stoic L7? MY GRANDMOTHER COULD DO THAT. Talk to me again when you can AA AA [A]") So what's the call? I contend that there is nothing wrong with saying "Most IIDX players kick ass at the game, but if you're passing 7s and 8s, you have a significant amount of dedication, you're good. Not AS good, but good. __________________ ------------------------------------------------------