> This doesn't mesh with why lots of people play things. It's play. It might just be a nice way to pass the time.
If training isn't fun, then don't train up. Instead, learn to be satisfied with losing.
Which is fine: I'm satisfied when I play a decent game (but lose) against stronger players. I probably was going to lose anyway.
Being satisfied with your skill level, and learning to enjoy a game without necessarily improving at it, is important. For most of us, playing games is just a hobby. Our professions... the skill we ACTUALLY practice to get good at throughout our lives... takes priority over our hobbies.
Part of what makes a hobby a hobby... is the decision to remain weaker than professionals at that skill. I'll never become as good of a Harmonica Player as Magic Dick (who played "Wammer Jammer": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0q2Vy3fx2I). But that's fine, because Magic Dick is a professional Harmonica Player.
I believe you're imagining a scenario where there isn't much of a skill gap, e.g. a match between a newbie and a competent amateur; a competent amateur and a professional; or a professional and a grandmaster. Losing to someone who's still "within your sight" can still be fun, because there's still an element of challenge to the game, and there are still stakes—i.e. you can still control how badly you lose, and therefore there's still something to strive for (to lose by a smaller margin.)
But when your level of skill gap with another player is too large, such that you won't learn anything by playing them and the entire match will be under their control 100% of the time, then there really isn't any point in playing them, and you'd be far better off—both for your enjoyment, and for your growth—to play against a weaker player.
It might be fun to have a sprinting match against your local state champion. It might even be fun to have a sprinting match against Usain Bolt. But there's no point to having a hypothetical sprinting match against The Flash. You wouldn't even leave the starting line before he crosses the finish line. There's no gradation of success available to you. You're simply crushed.
Likewise, there's no point, if you're a five-year-old, to trying to (seriously) arm-wrestle an adult. Your undeveloped strength will be overwhelmed without accomplishing the slightest movement of the opponent's arm, right at the beginning of the match, every time. You won't even get to practice the skill or build the muscles involved in arm-wrestling.
> But when your level of skill gap with another player is too large, such that you won't learn anything by playing them and the entire match will be under their control 100% of the time, then there really isn't any point in playing them, and you'd be far better off—both for your enjoyment, and for your growth—to play against a weaker player.
Unless you're playing in an exceptionally small or dying gaming community, most video games and online board games have good matchmaking services, which provides a quick-and-easy matchup to people of similar skill levels as you.
A lot of the discussions in this thread are about Overwatch (one of the most popular video games right now), or Chess (one of the most popular board games). You should have no issues finding opponents close to your skill in either of these games.
Er, the article is clearly about "participatory games" (either single-player games with leaderboards, or multi-player games intended to be played with friends or family-members rather than strangers) and how they should work vis-a-vis accessibility considerations, like "assist modes." Should a speedrun of a game appear on a leaderboard if you had to play with aim-assist due to Parkinson's? Etc.
If there's an ELO matchmaking system in place, then the whole discussion—"How to play with people who are better than you"—is moot. So, for the purposes of discussion here, you should probably assume that there isn't such a system in place for the game in question. (The people who are bringing up examples from games with ELO presumably haven't read the article.)
Huh, you have a pretty different perception of what makes a thing hobby vs. work. For me, a hobby gives you a permission to get better - because play is an important part of getting better. Whereas at work, you're constrained by the context in which your work is embedded. For instance, when working on a hobby project, I can afford to do each piece of it right, to the best of my abilities - whereas at work, I have to deal with things like team velocity, time to market, list of features driven by sales instead of utility, etc. - all of which preclude doing great work.
If training isn't fun, then don't train up. Instead, learn to be satisfied with losing.
Which is fine: I'm satisfied when I play a decent game (but lose) against stronger players. I probably was going to lose anyway.
Being satisfied with your skill level, and learning to enjoy a game without necessarily improving at it, is important. For most of us, playing games is just a hobby. Our professions... the skill we ACTUALLY practice to get good at throughout our lives... takes priority over our hobbies.
Part of what makes a hobby a hobby... is the decision to remain weaker than professionals at that skill. I'll never become as good of a Harmonica Player as Magic Dick (who played "Wammer Jammer": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0q2Vy3fx2I). But that's fine, because Magic Dick is a professional Harmonica Player.