Curse

M @ T · Aug 31, 2009, 08:33 AM // 08:33

The first step in my opinion is to understand that Guild Wars is actually a game, meaning it is built to provide fun. Then comes the rest

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 08:46 AM // 08:46

Well, glacial, what do you think of the post below yours?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M @ T

The first step in my opinion is to understand that Guild Wars is actually a game, meaning it is built to provide fun. Then comes the rest

What's interesting to me is that this sort of attitude often (but not always) prevents people from taking the game seriously enough to actually be any good at it.

Again, more fuzzy, warm ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with being good at GW.

Devika · Aug 31, 2009, 08:55 AM // 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

What's interesting to me is that this sort of attitude often (but not always) prevents people from taking the game seriously enough to actually be any good at it.

What's interesting to me is that people take a video game so seriously that they will waste their life away trying desperately to be good at it. Just because someone likes to have fun, and not take a game so seriously that doesn't mean they cannot play the game or are unskilled. To make that stereotype is pointless because it is inaccurate.

To keep on track however I would say battlefield awareness, communication skills, and being efficient at your role, all of which can be a trait of a casual or hardcore player.

M @ T · Aug 31, 2009, 09:03 AM // 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

What's interesting to me is that this sort of attitude often (but not always) prevents people from taking the game seriously enough to actually be any good at it.

Again, more fuzzy, warm ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with being good at GW.

Well by having fun in the game you also get "good" at it. For instance, if you like GvGing than you also learn about the meta, which class best suits you and why, whatever actually, as long as you are having fun. So in a few words, fun is the main factor while GWing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devika

What's interesting to me is that people take a video game so seriously that they will waste their life away trying desperately to be good at it.

Agreed, rl is more important IMO. Some people prioritize differently though. As long as it keeps a smile on their face and not become addicted I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devika

To keep on track however I would say battlefield awareness, communication skills, and being efficient at your role.

nuff said me thinks

gerlin · Aug 31, 2009, 09:03 AM // 09:03

Warriors in FoW armor with chaos gloves, tormented shield and tormented/destroyer weapon. And are W/Mo.. Everyone else is just bad. Maybe Assassins in labia.. eh.. Vabbian armor with chaos gloves that are A/E.

But now seriously, any player that understands that other people are on the other end and welcomes comments on his or her build and listens to them and maybe asks questions of why that skills is better then that skill.

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 09:16 AM // 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devika

What's interesting to me is that people take a video game so seriously that they will waste their life away trying desperately to be good at it. Just because someone likes to have fun, and not take a game so seriously that doesn't mean they cannot play the game or are unskilled. To make that stereotype is pointless because it is inaccurate.

Who is likely to be more skilled: the guy who takes the game seriously, or the guy who thinks it's "just for fun"? How many tournament-level players in any competitive activity are there that don't take it seriously - versus how many that do? The reality is that, with few exceptions, the guys that practice harder and think more are going to be better players. While relatively few people make it to the top tiers in the first place, failing to take something seriously is a good way to guarantee that you will never be good enough at it to matter - and that's true for pretty much anything in life.

What you consider to be worth your time and energy is frankly no one's business but yours.

Devika · Aug 31, 2009, 09:41 AM // 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Who is likely to be more skilled: the guy who takes the game seriously, or the guy who thinks it's "just for fun"? How many tournament-level players in any competitive activity are there that don't take it seriously - versus how many that do? The reality is that, with few exceptions, the guys that practice harder and think more are going to be better players. While relatively few people make it to the top tiers in the first place, failing to take something seriously is a good way to guarantee that you will never be good enough at it to matter - and that's true for pretty much anything in life.

Thinking that the only good player is one who plays in top flight PvP screams narrow minded. You don't need to be competitive to be good.

You don't need to put thousands of hours into this game to be good at it. You just need to have a mind of your own and be able to apply key principles correctly.

mage767 · Aug 31, 2009, 09:51 AM // 09:51

A good player (in PvE) is one:

1) Who can provide his share of 'resources' to the benefit of the team? He knows how his build will impact his team. This also means all runneers are lazy and bad players.

2) Who can lead a bunch of pugs into treacherous missions (Frostmaw HM, etc), bonding them together with his advice, and crushing bosses without the need of cons, but sheer will-power alone.

3) Who creates the next-gen builds for pve related content to make it easier for everyone, and then shares it with others. He understands that pvx is not the Bible, and so does not follow it to the word.

4) Who has played through all professions and has experiemented with most of the skills. He constantly modifies his bar to adapt to his surroundings.

5) Who understands that heroes are a valuable resource and knows how to command them correctly. He equips them well with proper runes and weapons before battle to improve his chances of success.

6) Who doesn't believe in the concept of 'main' character or 'gwamm'.

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 10:25 AM // 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devika

Thinking that the only good player is one who plays in top flight PvP screams narrow minded. You don't need to be competitive to be good.

If what you say is true, that makes "good" pretty arbitrary, doesn't it? What makes your definition of "good" more reasonable (or, in your terms, more "open minded") than mine? Or is "good" just whatever you say it is?

At least my judgment of good is based on an actual objective metric - tournament performance - rather than some handwaving about "applying key principles". So what are these key principles? How well do they have to be applied for someone to be considered good? How do you know?

Short · Aug 31, 2009, 10:28 AM // 10:28

People who listen.

Devika · Aug 31, 2009, 10:40 AM // 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

If what you say is true, that makes "good" pretty arbitrary, doesn't it? What makes your definition of "good" more reasonable (or, in your terms, more "open minded") than mine? Or is "good" just whatever you say it is?

At least my judgment of good is based on an actual objective metric - tournament performance - rather than some handwaving about "applying key principles". So what are these key principles? How well do they have to be applied for someone to be considered good? How do you know?

For some reason my last reply wasn't posted, weird.

Tournament play doesn't mean a thing. A player might be good in one aspect but that doesn't mean he is good at other aspects.

I've seen a R11 Hero from a top 50 guild fail horribly at PvE, not just once, but in several times in succession (I shall keep names out of this however). This isn't to say all PvP players are bad at PvE, but a point being made that being good at one thing doesn't mean you are good at everything and this should be taken into account accordingly.

As for my examples I have already given them, read back a bit and you will find them. If you disagree that they seperate the good from the bad, in pretty much any aspect of the game, then I would like to know why.

Destro Maniak · Aug 31, 2009, 10:45 AM // 10:45

a good player is someone who reads wiki before doing something

Pepe El Telefonista · Aug 31, 2009, 11:37 AM // 11:37

A good player is who can play with his guildies joking and laughing, who can investigate new builds and alternatives. And the last and more important thing....the good player is who can do all that i have wroten before and have social live!!!

Rocky Raccoon · Aug 31, 2009, 12:20 PM // 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by glacialphoenix

(To be absolutely frank, I get most frustrated with the really nice players who have a terrible skillbar. You're really nice, it would be a joy playing with you IF ONLY YOU WEREN'T USELESS... frustrating.)

If they are truly nice people, I am sure if you were to suggest some changes here and there with an explanation on how to use them, they would be only too willing to listen. The OP should have stated what makes a skillful GW player if that was in fact what he was looking for, the word good has way too many definitions other than skillful.

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 12:25 PM // 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devika

snip

You're missing my point. Tournament play is an objective metric - good players are players that win more. There isn't any way to fudge or spin this kind of metric. Who are the best Street Fighter players? Who are the best Starcraft players? Who are the best chess players? Who are the best tennis players? Invariably, it's the guys out there winning tournaments, setting records, etc. We can say, definitively, that Player A is better than Player B because A beats B, or A wins more than B. In fact, determining the best players is exactly what a tournament is designed to do.

I don't see any examples from you in this thread (you have three posts in this thread, and all three were replies to me). Regardless, whatever attributes you could name are subjective and arbitrary. I'll give you an example. Suppose I said that good ranger players are those that can interrupt 3/4s casts on reaction (i.e., not guessing) >95% of the time at <150ms ping. Is this a necessary condition for being a good player? Is it a sufficient condition? Why or why not? There's no question that, all else being equal, a ranger player with quicker reaction times is more effective - but how quick is quick enough to be "good"? Similarly, more consistency is always good, but how consistent do you have to be to be "good"? You can apply the same thinking to any other attribute.

Ultimately, "good" is just a fuzzy term - in most cases it means whatever you want it to mean, and as Ensign said several months ago, people like to define "good" to include themselves.

Devika · Aug 31, 2009, 12:31 PM // 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

You're missing my point. Tournament play is an objective metric - good players are players that win more. There isn't any way to fudge or spin this kind of metric. Who are the best Street Fighter players? Who are the best Starcraft players? Who are the best chess players? Who are the best tennis players? Invariably, it's the guys out there winning tournaments, setting records, etc. We can say, definitively, that Player A is better than Player B because A beats B, or A wins more than B. In fact, determining the best players is exactly what a tournament is designed to do.

I don't see any examples from you in this thread (you have three posts in this thread, and all three were replies to me). Regardless, whatever attributes you could name are subjective and arbitrary. I'll give you an example. Suppose I said that good ranger players are those that can interrupt 3/4s casts on reaction (i.e., not guessing) >95% of the time at <150ms ping. Is this a necessary condition for being a good player? Is it a sufficient condition? Why or why not? There's no question that, all else being equal, a ranger player with quicker reaction times is more effective - but how quick is quick enough to be "good"? Similarly, more consistency is always good, but how consistent do you have to be to be "good"? You can apply the same thinking to any other attribute.

Ultimately, "good" is just a fuzzy term - in most cases it means whatever you want it to mean, and as Ensign said several months ago, people like to define "good" to include themselves.

I don't agree with you about Tournament play, because as I have already stated there is more to Guild Wars than Tournament PvP to be "good" at. Just because there are no tournaments for PvE it doesn't mean players don't strive to be good at PvE (and believe me there is a difference between a good PvE player and a bad one).

However I can agree with most of the rest though.

Oh and you'll find my example of what I think makes a good player (in any format) here on this very page:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devika

I would say battlefield awareness, communication skills, and being efficient at your role.

glacialphoenix · Aug 31, 2009, 12:55 PM // 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

If they are truly nice people, I am sure if you were to suggest some changes here and there with an explanation on how to use them, they would be only too willing to listen.

Oh, this was some time back - I found out what they were using the hard way. You know, wtf is this guy doing in - oh, dear. I don't PUG much anymore, if at all, so it's quite irrelevant now.

Quote:

The first step in my opinion is to understand that Guild Wars is actually a game, meaning it is built to provide fun. Then comes the rest

What's interesting to me is that this sort of attitude often (but not always) prevents people from taking the game seriously enough to actually be any good at it.

What's 'taking the game seriously enough'? I mean, yes, I see where you're coming from. It shouldn't be an excuse for you to not improve and claim that you don't have to improve because 'it's just a game'. On the other hand, if you're getting upset and frustrated ingame, it's probably time to log out for a bit or at least go do something different in GW - it is a game, it's there for you to have fun.

You've been citing tournament play, which I agree is an objective metric, but GW isn't just tournaments and PvP, and there are barriers to PvP entry besides ability of player. If your connection was erratic, you probably wouldn't PvP. If your connection is slow, you probably won't PvP, either - at least not in organized formats, much less in tournaments. It doesn't prevent you from wanting to play as well as you can and learning to compensate for limitations - these are things that can be done in both PvE OR PvP, and not just tournament play. IMO you can 'take the game seriously' in either format, and it's not fair to claim that playing purely in one makes you somehow less serious than the other.

(Those who want to win and are willing to think to win do do better than those who aren't, generally. But don't tell me winning isn't part of the fun.)

slowerpoke · Aug 31, 2009, 12:57 PM // 12:57

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

moriz · Aug 31, 2009, 01:00 PM // 13:00

i've seen what it takes to be successful at PvE. let me tell you: it doesn't take much. apparently, a good PvE player, plays about as good as i can with one hand. this is purely from a mechanical execution point of view btw.

given above, it should be obvious why many people use PvP accomplishments as a metric for judging whether a player is good at guild wars or not. 'cause frankly, it doesn't take much to be good at PvE.

Burst Cancel · Aug 31, 2009, 01:33 PM // 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by glacialphoenix

Those who want to win and are willing to think to win do do better than those who aren't, generally. But don't tell me winning isn't part of the fun.

Many people mix this part up; I remember having a very similar discussion about fun and competition just a few months ago. I nowhere claim that competitive players can't have fun, and I do not advocate actively avoiding fun. However, competitive players don't see "fun" as the goal, in-and-of-itself. Improving or winning is the goal, and fun is the side effect. In competitive activities, not having fun is okay as long as you win; for casual players, not winning is okay as long as you're having fun.

I cite tournaments because they're a solid and conventional measure that are pretty much impossible to argue with. You can use objective measures for PvE too, but the community seems to think the bar is simply too low. For instance, the most obvious objective measure is beating the game; anyone who beats the game has succeeded in completing the normal content. Most people (or at least, most gurus posters) would find this to be a ridiculous metric. So let's increase the difficulty: beating every mission in the game in hard mode with bonus/masters reward, vanquishing every area, and clearing every elite area in hard mode. That's probably still not good enough, but we're starting to run out of non-arbitrary conditions. If clearing all of the content in the game isn't hard enough, all you're left with is artificial, player-imposed restrictions like "without consummables" or "without Shadow Form", etc. And really, you can just keep tacking those on until it fits whatever definition you were looking for.