What is a "good" IIDX player?

[randomtexthere]

At what point does one become a "good" IIDX player? Not amazing, but good. I can do 7s and 8s and some 9s, I can easily full combo MAX LOVE [H] and I can pass Love Is Eternity [H]. Am I average?

[word]

I guess it's all a matter of opinion. I feel that grades in songs are more important.

AAA'ing a 9* is more of an achievement than getting a B on a 11*, but still clearing it.

Just my opinion..


inb4 shitstorm of different opinions.

[aroomwithaview]

on one end there are the horrible players who cannot pass a normal seven key chart or even have trouble with the three star beginner charts

on the other end there are the players who triple a every chart

that gigantic grey area between those two extremes are the good players

since theres no possible way to quantitatively determine a songs difficulty it is entirely a persons opinion as to what makes a player average much less below average or above average

id say your accomplishments put you squarely in the average range but many others wont agree with me

Originally Posted by word

AAA'ing a 9* is more of an achievement than getting a B on a 11*, but still clearing it.

yeah i dont agree with that

if you can pass a song you can triple a it if you play it a thousand times in a row

[Marco768]

I'd say anyone who can play lv 5s are average players.

If they can clear 5s, they should be those who plays IIDX sort of seriously(SIRIUSLY), and don't consider it as a random game in the arcade which they'll occassionally play when really bored.

And I would say someone who are at the lv 7-8 as decent players.

For those who can play 10s with ease(I would say 50% chance of normal clearing random AA[h] as the benchmark), as good players (IMO, good>decent), when people get to this stage IIDX should be one of their main games to play at the arcade.

So, I'll call those in 10s "good", or those in 7-8s if you think decent>good(I'm not really sure on this)

As for grade VS levels, I consider level as the more important factor, if you can get a B clear on an 11, you shouldn't have problem AAing a few 9s. I think the reverse is less likely to happen.

[Milk Chan]

It depends if you're focusing on Clearing, FCs, or timing.

If it's just clearing, I wouldn't consider average until you start clearing a few 11s or can clear 9-Dan (although it does seem that most IIDX players are 10-dan, judging by rival data numbers).

For FCs I would say good is when you can FC 9s and 10s.

Timing I can't really say much on because mine sucks, but if I considered myself good with timing then when you can AAA a few 11s or AA some 12s I guess.

Originally Posted by word

I guess it's all a matter of opinion. I feel that grades in songs are more important.

AAA'ing a 9* is more of an achievement than getting a B on a 11*, but still clearing it.

Just my opinion..


inb4 shitstorm of different opinions.

I won't count my scores unless I clear. Yeah i'd be happy if I got a AA on Nageki no ki [a] but I wouldn't really care unless I could clear it. After that I wouldn't care whether I pass or fail knowing that I have cleared at least once before.

[word]

Originally Posted by Milk Chan

I won't count my scores unless I clear. Yeah i'd be happy if I got a AA on Nageki no ki [a] but I wouldn't really care unless I could clear it. After that I wouldn't care whether I pass or fail knowing that I have cleared at least once before.

Hmm, grades are priority for me. I'd rather be focusing on the timing of a 10/11*, than scraping my way through a 12*.

[Exagon]

I think that passing songs comes mostly from experience, not from innate skill. I guess you could make a similar argument for timing, but I find that some people just never get good at timing, so I think grades are much more important than what you can pass.

[shona sakimaru]

,,,umm

[squeethehobo]

I had the impression that the first benchmark of being "good" was passing Stoic L7. There are very many different possible definitions of what "good" is, but if you compare it along the lines of say, who is generally considered "good" at a ddr machine - where if someone passes 8s they're 'good' (though only in the eyes of a casual player, not to the hardcore.)

...Its awfully hard to tell.

[Meseki]

To the casual person, being "good" would probably be consistently passing 7s and 8s.

To the more hardcore player, it's probably passing most 11s and/or AAAing or FCing 8s and 9s.

To the elitists, it may very well be AAA FCing 10s and 11s with little problem.

[Blackraven]

Originally Posted by squeethehobo

I had the impression that the first benchmark of being "good" was passing Stoic L7. There are very many different possible definitions of what "good" is, but if you compare it along the lines of say, who is generally considered "good" at a ddr machine - where if someone passes 8s they're 'good' (though only in the eyes of a casual player, not to the hardcore.)

...Its awfully hard to tell.

I agree with the general consensus of opinions and viewpoints here. It really depends on what you want to achieve when playing BM IIDX. For me though, my priorities are mainly on clearing, then hard clearing, then FC/PC.

Well this may vary but for me, one indicator (that you at least have a certain amount of skill) is if you can get the extra stage in an arcade version hehe

My two cents here

[TrueFSX]

On IIDX, I would say "good" is a person who can do 7s easily.

I personally think someone who can do 11s or 10s is "really good".

[_____Cait]

I would say 7-8's are "Good", while 11+ is "Great".

Black Anothers are "Flashing Great". Hahahaha oh I crack myself up.

[Lentic]

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.

[Dara-G.]

I dont consider myself good. I can pass most 11s and hc about half those 11s. Thats the scale "I" judge myself with. Basicly i use this to better myself.

Honestly imo for others i think your good if you can pass 7s lets start there.