I would argue that there is a direct correlation between players skill level and their intelligence. I am not saying that good players are always more intelligent than bad players, but as a general rule I think it's accurate. Given that there are very few basic game mechanics to learn, with the only difference between good players and even better players being how they play around with said mechanics (delays, estimating opponent income, estimating delays, stacking, effectively expanding, picking spots...).
This game is purely between one mind and another, and I am only speaking about games where there is no luck involved, i.e auto pick games rating is irrelevant.
I would make the same case for games like chess, where, likewise, a high level of intelligence is necessary to achieve a high level of play.

I would like to add that this is only my opinion, and I am open to having it changed.

For anybody that has played with me, I am fully aware of where that would put my intelligence. I write this only to hear others opinions on this topic.

Edited 9/18/2019 19:06:24

The only correlation is how good you are at the game vs. how much time you have put in to increasing your skill. Just like any other hierarchy, there are people who are willing to put in much more effort to improving themselves. Where you will find the most “intelligent” people are those who pioneer new ways to play the game, and that transcends simply skill.

Yes, of course practice is a variable to consider when gauging skill, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'm trying to say is that intelligence is another variable which significantly determines skill. Simply playing the game relentlessly won't translate to improved skill as highly as it would for someone else.

Putting more time in does not mean simply playing the game relentlessly. It means working with others to improve, researching theories, and analyzing games you have already played. That is what makes people truly fantastic at this game beyond simply their base skill.

Sure, what you may call “intelligence,” or somebody’s base skill, may be a greater variable at the beginning of a strat career, but at higher levels that base level is insignificant.

Daily reminder that IQ is unreliable

Not sure if it’s been mentioned already, but boot time is another thing you need to take into consideration. You can only analyse and plan so much before you have no time left to make orders. This is particularly true in RT. When it comes to MD, it’s all about how much effort you put in as there’s plenty of time.

Motivation is another factor as well. You can only get good if you’re willing to put time and effort into improving and trying out different mechanics. It’s likely that intelligent people would be more willing to improve and take their time to analyse many different outcomes.

When it comes to auto picks, there is some skill required. It’s about how you play it out. You could be given poor picks but still win against someone with good picks because they could have made better use of their picks. There’s defiantly a significantly higher amount of skill needed to play in manual distribution games to get the best picks. Sometimes a pick may appear bad, but is actually an unexpected counter attack. Both good and bad players do this, bad players by chance, good players intentionally. I’ve had times in Greece where I’ve won because of making a wasteland pick and lost because of my opponent having a wasteland pick.

One thing to mention on topic is that intelligence has a lot of separate categories or something. Things like memory, creativity, logical thinking, quick thinking, seeing things from different perspectives, separating facts and logic from emotions, finding other people's emotions, etc. are all part of intelligence. It is quite normal to be really good with one or two, and such with the rest. This makes it all the more difficult to measure intelligence, and the definition of intelligence is blurry because of this.

If you're a bit dumb, it'll take much more work to get better at the game. Your ceiling is probably significantly lower. Yes, you need to practice intelligently and have motivation to be better, or even good. But if you are smarter, you'll figure out or notice more things, faster.

But the best players in anything will have talent and dedication. No getting around that.

To use a sports analogy, this is like saying there is a correlation between a person's height and their basketball skill (or chance of being in the NBA). duh. Height isn't the only defining factor, but neither is dedicated practice. Warlight is a cerebral game, so the people who like this kind of thing will have an advantage.

@goodgame part of the problem with intelligence is that its very multi-faceted. So people tend to view it as a singular dimension when its closer to a bundle of stats (think old-school D&D). Then there's the morons that decide personality traits = intelligence....

Edited 9/16/2019 22:40:36

dude semice got #1 on ladder and he's a fucking brainlet

no offence if you're reading this buddy

I'm level 57, but my win-rate is like 33%

@Mista Sista: "Sure, what you may call “intelligence,” or somebody’s base skill, may be a greater variable at the beginning of a strat career, but at higher levels that base level is insignificant".

My problem with this statement is that it seems to suggest that higher level play is automated, people just know how to react to enemy plays. With variation in player intelligence being irrelevant, then at the highest level of play, the very top players, players who have mastered the game, should play identically according to what you're saying (correct me if I misunderstood your statement). Player play style would be uniform in the long run.

@THETungstenTrex: IQ is not unreliable, whether or not it reflects intelligence is another thing entirely, irrelevant to my post. IQ tests are carried out by the military, if you've ever applied for a job at a bank as an analyst, or as a civil servant, you must first complete an IQ test (they call the tests different names but when I've completed them the problems put forward are almost identical as the ones inIQ test, most are about discerning patterns from seemingly random sequences).

@DanWL: I agree with you. What I'm arguing for is that there is very likely a direct correlation between intelligence and overall level of play, being that this game pits two minds against one another and chance is kept to a minimum.

@goodgame: I guess I would be specifying the logical thinking aspect of intelligence.

@I Swear: "Your ceiling is probably significantly lower". This is exactly what I'm trying to say. To put two extreme examples, someone with an IQ of 80 would never match the level of play of someone with an IQ of 130. (I don't agree with IQ tests as being reflective of intelligence, I'm only using them for the purpose of this example). Let's say we got two players, both put equally as much time into the game, think about their moves in the same manner etc, all things unchanged, the more intelligent player would more often than not come out on top.

Let's say we got two players, both put equally as much time into the game, think about their moves in the same manner etc, all things unchanged, the more intelligent player would more often than not come out on top.

You can't take a sterile, hypothetical situation and then make a claim about practical real-life, though. That's a big error in your research method.
Sure, all other things being the same, more intelligent people might have more skill.
But all other things are not the same. They aren't.
In your sterile, hypothetical situation there is a correlation between skill level and intelligence - but in real life, there isn't. There are too many interfering factors to even think about a correct statistical correlation. No professor would ever approve of such a rigid conclusion from such a jumbled mess of data.

Someone mentioned professional athletes as a comparison, which - unlike this case - might have a statistical correlation between "talent" and eventual skill. Why? Because there are:
- Vastly more athletes than Warzone players. The data set is bigger, which makes a statistical conclusion more probable.
- More athletes with similar situations. All professional athletes have the same job. They all have the same chances. They all spend the same amount of time training (all their time).
- More rules in professional sports excluding interferences. Gear and equipment is standardised, allowed hormones and drugs are standardised, in some cases length and body weight are even standardised.
All of this means that the real-life situation of professional athletes comes much closer to the hypothetical "all other factors being equal".

For Warzone, though, "all other factors being equal" stays solely a hypothetical. There is not one person here who has "all other factors" (time, dedication, gear, money, time, age, finger length, whatever) exactly the same as any other person.

An intelligent person learns fast according to his general abilities. A systematic genius is not going to be good at sculptures and paintings.

Again, IQ is unreliable. There is no biological aspect that backs up the "smart test" that IQ test pretend they are. IQ is not inheritable. IQ averages of countries have shown to change over the years, while remaining the same in ethnic demographics. The root of intelligence is not from a technical basis, but from a physiological and psychological basis.

Intelligence itself is somewhat abstract, so you can't put it down to a paper test, but through a physiological test. Although, that is just my own theory. From my own experience though, most people have different views on what intelligence really is.

Back to my first claim: Intelligence of any kind does not buy your way into everything. Slow learners will learn slowly. Fast learners will learn quickly. People with experience of strategic games will always be good at Risk. /thread

I don't think you can say that e. g. Jo is more intelligent than Jack because he is a slightly better WL player, especially if he is also more experienced. Speaking of the general tendency, I fully agree with you though, Elohim: I've never met a very good WL player who would've seemed not intelligent to me. This argument does only function this way round though, there can be many people who are very intelligent and still fail to learn WL (or chess), just because intelligence is so multifaceted. Neither is any of us a personified IQ test.

I like Fizzer's formulation:

Playing skill games is brain exercise
Skill based games can be very important brain exercises and can help players keep active minds as they get older. The act of strategizing and planning takes active thinking that makes the brain work as opposed to a mindless chance game that anyone could play. Games based on skill not only require strategy and an understanding of the game but the player also needs the capacity to outsmart his opponent. It takes a greater amount of concentration and dedication when there is no possibility of winning by chance or luck.

@alexclusive: thank you, your last reply neatly sums up what I've been trying to say. "'I've never met a very good WL player who would've seemed not intelligent to me". I am just saying that there is a direct correlation, not that it's the only variable that determines level of play.

"Games based on skill not only require strategy and an understanding of the game but the player also needs the capacity to outsmart his opponent" I think with this quote from Fizzer we can officially close this thread, thank you to everyone who participated.