SKILL NO SKILL SKILLED UNSKILLED. It's going nowhere.

That might be a fair definition, yes.

Can it stand up under the weight of a tornado of people saying it takes no skill or that skill is something else entirely?

Everything in this game takes a certain level of skill. Anyone who says otherwise is unskilled

A devoted Medic has maybe less score than a HE spawn room farmer so would that equate that the latter is more skilled ? Ofc not ..
So SPH can Only ever be used as a personal metric or guide , it can never be used to dictate if one player is more skilled than any other ..
I'm not saying that's what you mean but it's certainly how some people view SPH ..

That kind of works, and even the silly contradiction of it.

It at the very least is superior to the "X takes skill nothing else does" ultra myopic focus that seems to pollute this forum much of the time.

I didn't think of that until now.

A lot of artificially induced, counterproductive and disruptive behavior can ensue of the general popular gets behind the idea that "SPH is everything". Sort of like the K/D ratio thing leading to far periphery sniping, lolpodders roaming way beyond contested areas and picking off stragglers for hour, and the like.

And ultimately it shows that it is also a hollow definition.

Very true ... SPH is open to a lot of variables ( Boosts / AFK time / Gameplay role etc ) which in a lot of ways negate it's use as any form of an overall metric ..

That's my issue with it too.

I did want to ask, ultimately, if we're best served in this video game if "skill", even if we COULD all agree on what it is and what it isn't, is some sort of ultimate priority for all design decisions.

It should be a game first, I think. If mastery through practice and experience occurs, that is great and enhances it. Doing otherwise can put the cart before the horse.

Let's say a weapon is fun but takes "NO SKILL(tm)," if we could agree upon what that means in the first place. In a game that's intended, as an entertainment source, to be fun, is that inherently a bad thing?

Fun should come second in design decisions after balance IMO while retaining the ability and freedom to allow mastery ..
A bit like Chess .. It's a simple game anyone can pick up and learn to play but only through practice and experience will you become truly good at it.

So with that being said I would say the following would be bad.

Because just like Chess you would want to allow that personal progression and if something is to much " NO SKILL(tm) " you are in danger of losing that resulting in shallow gameplay ...

I got the "this game is chess" thing in Mechwarrior Online too. As if fell steeply into a pit of 95 hopping sniper mechs (because those take the most "skill" and the devs listened), the chess apparently involved hopping up and down behind ridges and shooting gauss rifles at each other, and the first group to get frustrated and charged instead, consistently lost.

My point, this isn't chess. It's a FPS with space fantasy guns that sometimes shoot funny colorful plasma bolts.

This game is very far removed from chess. Likewise, perhaps its emphasis should be too.

I think you misunderstood .. I'm not claiming this game is Chess or is even like Chess, but to me it should have the same " Anyone can pick up and play " concept, while still allowing for the personal progression aspect of becoming more masterful due to practice and experience.
Which is why I disagreed with your last paragraph in the previous post.

Edit: Chess being the example .. It could be Soccer or Poker

lol GaussCats.

Anyone who relies on a crutch has no skill tbh.

I think the argument about skill is a symptom.

The actual affliction is the disturbing tendency for people to see things in the most absolute terms possible, to believe that they are right and others are wrong just because.

What makes it even worse is that there is a video game involved. So now there are real experiences and physical things to argue over, and an anonymous internet forum to do it on.

"Skill" is a mix of coordenation and reflexes: anything that makes you go "beyond" to what you were expected to do in a videogame (since we are talking about a First Person Shooter: aim and kill enemies.). And no, shooting with your sniper rifle on the same place for hours killing unaware lowbies is not "skilled". Neither is farming and/or anything that requires you time to adapt.

I think you meant to say that skill is entirely subjective and depends on the poster's personal beliefs/experiences?

I mean, this is essentially proof of that.

latency/lag > reflexes

When i kill (or get killed) in a one on one confrontation, i'd be hard pressed to say if it's a matter of skill or luck.

Even this is too vague. Someone relying on an AV turret to get kills would generally be considered without skill by most players. But what about someone relying on an advanced foregrip and compensator to make recoil manageable on a weapon like the AC-X11? Is that person without skill because they can't control the recoil of the stock gun on their own, and must rely on this "crutch"?

You have to be more specific than this. And in the end it is all subjective, and therefore pointless to label someone as "skilled" or "unskilled."

Might as well go ahead and say that posting in a forum is subjective, since others can say that you aren't posting: but, indeed, TALKING in a forum.
Having several opinions about something doesn't make it subjective: therefore, common sense. I know this is a bait, but I'm biting this for the sake of variety/boredom.

This game is far to large and complicated to simply be boiled down into the twitch skill camp, there is more going on the aiming, it might be the core component to the FPS genre, but it is not the be all end all of the argument.

also please define "requires time to adapt"

The game becomes chess when you start to think of it as a leader of an outfit's platoon, at least it does when you are a good leader. Although I would say its a much more simple experience than chess, but it does take quite a bit of wit to read the map and react to things appropriately when leading. I would say its more akin to a RTS like Supreme Commander in this respect than chess. Simple to play, yet difficult to know how to properly react.

But for a soldier in the platoon not leading its more or less another shooter. If you have never led a 3 squad+ group of soldiers you can't really say the game lacks a strategy element.

On the point of skill, I rarely use the word ever. I use it to describe things I can't do every now and again tehehehe. To me it means you have the ability to do something extremely easily that a regular player can't do all that well. You have a skill when you can Tank effectively, actually use the infiltrator effectively, or know how to apply the Lasher to a situation. I don't really see any play as unskilled save for cheating. I have tried flying and even getting a good line on someone to pod them is a skill in itself, and I have tried my hand at sniping at different ranges as its definitely a skill when you can consistently get that bullet on someones head.