The majority of the community sucks (or does it?)

[the_jos]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

But if what you are trying continually fails and you refuse to change, then you will continue to suck. That is another problem with many players...they want to play THEIR way regardless of whether or not something is more effective. Even if you gather a lot of people who think like you, you will simply have a group of people who suck. It has created a big snowball of people who suck because they refuse to change and adapt. They simply use things like PvE skills and consumables so they don't have to deal with changing and adapting much (which goes right back to my promoting skill-less gameplay comments).

I play the way I like to play. Just as I like to write poems the way I write them and the way I make pencil drawings is just mine. Others may think it sucks but it is my way of doing things.
Not only that, because I've drawn numerous eyes I can draw a convincing one. But up to the point that I drew a convincing one all eyes I drew before were sucking. Or take my poems (no, not giving them). You may think they suck but they are an expression of me.
I don't care that you think that I suck.

Now we have these 'drawing for dummies' and 'poems for dummies' books.
They make people think they can draw or make poems, at least when comparing them to 'real' artists.
Still, people buy those books because they think they will improve their drawing or writing. But buying such a book doesn't make someone a great artist.
You know what does? Practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice. And being honest about yourself.

Now people who buy the 'dummy' books don't want to be great artists. At least, most of them. For some reason they feel they ain't good enough and hope to improve. And some do improve indeed to the level they want.
But most of those books teach some tricks, not the fundamental understanding of drawing or language needed to be a 'great artist'.

Which brings me to the following. Why do people think they ain't good enough. Either because they can't get something done (I can't make a sculpture) or because others tell them they ain't good enough.
Well, if I can draw a head and you understand it's a head and that's all I want to express, who cares it doesn't look like a portrait by Rembrandt. And if someone can't draw a head and with his book for dummies he can it has surved it's purpose.

Now we get another problem.
I have this person who can barely draw something that looks like a head and want to make this awesome painting but I 'need' someone else. Now I have a problem since this person can't really draw. He will be a burden to me, because I can paint like Rembrandt (well, I wish....) and he can't even get a normal outline on a piece of paper.

So if I want to make my piece of art with that person I just have to ..... make him feel I need him to get better.
And that will take practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice. Since he has talent and I don't he can get at my level in about .... well, half the time I spend practicing. Which would still be months or years.
And if that person can't be bothered, since who the hell am I, he will just go his way and get along with his drawing for dummies book.
And probably forget about drawing because he only wanted to draw one somewhat decent head for his daughter.

This is the situation in Guild Wars.
Why the hell do people care if other players suck.
Oh, they can't accomplish whatever they want because of those players.
They team up with them only to find out those players ain't up for things.
Well, find a group of people who can and stick with them. PUG suck has been the word on GWG since 2006 and things didn't change.
And if people never team up with sucking players, well why do they care at all. Because of the economy? You mean that mechanic that made most non-trader stuff and even some trader stuff unreachable for starting players.
And if they wanted it they should 'shut up and go farm'?

That was the situation at the end of 2006, early 2007 and nearly made me quit the game. Not because I don't like farming, but because I think it's retarted that when I play the game the way it's ment (questing and missions) I would get not even 1/10 of the income a solo-farmer could get. And 'the community' aggreed that farming was the way to get the desired items, not regular gameplay. My way or no way.

I also like people to become better players. To start using more efficient builds. To stop relying on PvE skills and consumables.
But my reason is that I think it's more fun to play that way.
Just as I think that writing poems is fun or drawing a picture is fun. And with the right tools and knowledge it's easier to do and you don't have to worry too much about tricks you learned. You just know what works.
But again, here we go again, that will take practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice, practice.

And even if new players want to practice, where can they do that and how will they get 4 years of experience?
When I would start GW over again right now I see no possible way to regain my experience before the release of GW2 without seriously harming my social life and compromising my work.
And most active experienced players are probably playing high end content most of the time or playing other stuff in guild/alliance teams, so it will be hard to find someone who can teach you new stuff.

Now let's start again about sucking players.
Could it be that they don't suck as hard as you think?
Could it be that new players are facing a completely different playing field than the one you faced when you started?
And that it's only a small minority that really sucks and that most players just don't have someone experienced to teach them how to play? Because all those experienced players are too busy getting their titles, playing some form of PvP, became inactive or are moaning on GWG most of the time?

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by the_jos

Still, people buy those books because they think they will improve their drawing or writing. But buying such a book doesn't make someone a great artist.

Now people who buy the 'dummy' books don't want to be great artists. At least, most of them. For some reason they feel they ain't good enough and hope to improve.

Sorry for not replying to your post entirely, due to shortage of time, but I want to disagree on this point: you have no idea what people really want when they get the For the Dummies books. I've learned a lot, even in fields where I have already a lot of knowledge, I was (like many around me) looking for structure, guidance, instead of the free flow of information I had before. Indeed a book is about "being better", but not better as Dreamwind envisage it (be like me!) but as you envisage it rather (I want to feel good).

My OP and this thread started from a few experiences I had where I would learn tiny bits of information (a build for RA, a place to look at in Obs, etc.) from a few helpful and knowledgeable people in the game that made me a happier player, through the path of learning the game. I still think that the game UI is not well understood, because it's overloaded with information for the average player (and this is the idea I'll develop from this thread).

Information overload requires guidance, the way we use the Google results to actually do our own sorting to find what we're looking for (which depends on who you are). This thread is about pedagogy, or the missing step between practice, practice, practice, practice, practice (I agree, and I said it before, it's essential) and the wiki.

(I may come back later with a wall of text to reply to yours if I find the time ...)

EDIT: I find your drawing argument, because I too did a lot of drawing years ago, and I love art (an important part of GW for me). It encompasses the subjective notion of "skill", but there's still a lot we can say, for example about body&face proportions, color arrangements, etc. This is where I'm heading: not to tell you "become better at drawing" but "learn a few tips that will allow you to become better, the way you want it to be".

[Yoom Omer]

It depends.

By "bad" you mean suck at playing, or simply being bad persons, like not nice?

I think that the second cause is irrelevant and idiscussable, because we can't change it. The first one, however, is a big problem which i can connect to one main cause, The exact opposite of question two:

Laziness

Once, in 2005, when I reached an area I couldn't pass, I'd change my build till I successfuly passed it. My build, that began by throwing everything I got in my skillbar (umm... The happy days of exhaustion till the end of my energy bar :P), is nowadays a decent nuking build (PvE, of course), only 1 or 2 skills different than what in PvX. Point is – I built it myself. Newbies (and especially noobs) simply have no idea how to construct a normal build that work, or are too lazy to test it the times required to get it to work…

So – basically I think PVX is one of the causes to players’ stupidity. Also, the community sucks. I was in lion’s arch yesterday, and there was a man there asking why he can’t apply a superior hammer mastery rune to his torso. After a while I helped him (he was a ranger…), and I was surprised to find he’s been waiting there 20 mins for help…

I’m sure at least 80% of the people there knew how to help him, but were either to lazy to help, or too selfish.

[tmr819]

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

The title summarises an idea very wide-spread that you can often read on Guru. This thread's purpose is to question and challenge this idea:

1) Are GW players really that bad?

2) Could it be that they haven't been taught how to play the game correctly? Maybe they missed resources like GW wiki, PvX and Guru (without even going into the "cookie cutter build" mentality)? Or they didn't have the time, given that it's a game and they don't want to invest much time in it?

3) Isn't it rather so-called "good players" that are bad at teaching how the game works? (not helped by lack of in-game good tutorials on many aspects of the game)

This thread may even lead us to the old-and-classic discussion on "skill" and "noobs" (as opposed to "newbies"). I guess. But I wonder if people can be critic of themselves and their approach and go beyond such prejudiced views... unless it's completely true of course!

In my opinion...

(1) No, most GW players are not that bad.

(2) If players are having fun, they are playing the game correctly.

(3) It isn't anyone's responsibility to teach anyone else. There are plenty of resources available (wiki, etc.) for those inclined to learn more.

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Either you make money with the game or you suck.

Not neccessarily. I know some unbelievable golfers who aren't on the pro tour due to various other factors in their life. And besides, using your standards there is less than 100 people in the history of the game who don't suck. It also means that everybody in the entire current community sucks because nobody can make money anymore.

Originally Posted by The_Jos

I play the way I like to play. Just as I like to write poems the way I write them and the way I make pencil drawings is just mine. Others may think it sucks but it is my way of doing things.

I don't think you can compare art to Guild Wars. Art is art. Being good at Guild Wars is more of a science (with a little art thrown in) because we have methods for determining skill and directly comparing your work to others. I have no problem with people having their own "art" in Guild Wars...the problem is we have a bunch of wannabe artists and not as many good scientists.

Originally Posted by The_Jos

Could it be that they don't suck as hard as you think?

I'd like to think so, but every trip into RA or AB tells me otherwise.

Originally Posted by The_Jos

Could it be that new players are facing a completely different playing field than the one you faced when you started?

Yep...they are facing a playing field where sucking is more accepted because the consequences are nonexistant.

Originally Posted by The_Jos

And that it's only a small minority that really sucks and that most players just don't have someone experienced to teach them how to play?

Because all those experienced players are too busy getting their titles, playing some form of PvP, became inactive or are moaning on GWG most of the time?

I bet if you did a study, you would find almost 100% that the "skilled" players didn't have anybody teach them how to play. I honestly find the "nobody is teaching me" response to be nothing more than an excuse.

Originally Posted by tmr819

If players are having fun, they are playing the game correctly.

So if I go play baseball and have fun striking out every time I am up to bat, I am playing the game correctly? Maybe I am, but if so I SUCK.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

What is the point of being skillful in something that doesn't turn into profit?

For fun, silly! We play because we find it enjoyable to go against numerous odds and find it insanely satisfying when we win against them. For us it's content, having to get better and better at the game, having to try new things, having to come up with working strategies.

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

For fun, silly! We play because we find it enjoyable to go against numerous odds and find it insanely satisfying when we win against them. For us it's content, having to get better and better at the game, having to try new things, having to come up with working strategies.

You still haven't answered me about how many hours of fun you had in gws and how many hours of fun you had in those single player games you mentioned and that never suffered a balanced update.


Many still suffer the syndrome of PvP into PvE. Soon they will be saying that read the wind PvE is overpowered because it adds damage while read the wind PvP doesn't.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

You still haven't answered me about how many hours of fun you had in gws and how many hours of fun you had in those single player games you mentioned and that never suffered a balanced update.

GW: /age brings up 2203

Mass Effect is closing in at about 3200 hours now (observe save game playtimesand count up). I recently started a Sentinel and am working on a playthrough to get him to 60. Pretty gimp, though, I'll be perfecting a playthrough on a Soldier afterwards.

KotOR? Not too sure. Last time I played it was a year ago or so. Got quite a few playthroughs in there, but still not too much.

Baldur's Gate? Can't even begin to count how many times I've been playing that...All I do know is you could probably multiply it by 20 to see how long I've been playing Doom.

Now, could you refresh me about how time played actually matters?

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Many still suffer the syndrome of PvP into PvE.

eh?

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

GW: /age brings up 2203

Mass Effect is closing in at about 3200 hours now (observe save game playtimesand count up). I recently started a Sentinel and am working on a playthrough to get him to 60. Pretty gimp, though, I'll be perfecting a playthrough on a Soldier afterwards.

KotOR? Not too sure. Last time I played it was a year ago or so. Got quite a few playthroughs in there, but still not too much.

Baldur's Gate? Can't even begin to count how many times I've been playing that...All I do know is you could probably multiply it by 20 to see how long I've been playing Doom.

Now, could you refresh me about how time played actually matters?

Time played shows value.

KotOR is great, but 1 pass through it is enough.

Your GW time will still give at least 10 hours+ played per euro/dollar paid. Not bad investment.

I, on the other hand, have 4600 hours in GW. Sincerely, 200 hours per profession is the bare minimum to develop a profession. Either you spent all your time on developing your 10 chars or you have still loads of untapped hours in GW to go.

I will have to look at the kind of gameplay of Mass Effect, but neither Baldurs Gate nor KotOR were great examples of incredible skillful gameplay or balance, with melee chars owning both games.

On the other hand I've, at least, 6000 hours of WC3 played in PvP and would sill be playing it if not from my GF not being in RTS.

eh?

Wasn't directed at you, but I bet if people weren't comparing play style between PvP and PvE and trying to "enforce" PvP play style in PvE, opinions would be rather different.

Additionally, I keep seeing in game, people "buying" HM missions and vanquishes, so apparently PvE-only skills and consets don't seem to be an enough of auto-win.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Time played shows value.

Eh?

So does that mean Portal lacks value? Likewise, does that mean if someone who puts a lot of time into a terrible game mean it has value?

You cant make any judgement off of time-played, and I just showed you that. One play through may be "enough" for one person but not for another. You found one play through "enough" in KotOR even though I did several. Replayability is very, very often times subjective, as is what can be content.

[Improvavel]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Eh?

So does that mean Portal lacks value? Likewise, does that mean if someone who puts a lot of time into a terrible game mean it has value?

You cant make any judgement off of time-played, and I just showed you that. One play through may be "enough" for one person but not for another. You found one play through "enough" in KotOR even though I did several. Replayability is very, very often times subjective, as is what can be content.

Value for money.

You can have great satisfaction playing short games, sure.

But if you are spending thousands of hours in a game it isn't because you aren't having fun with it.

And having fun with games is the most important feature of it.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Improvavel

Value for money.

You can have great satisfaction playing short games, sure.

But if you are spending thousands of hours in a game it isn't because you aren't having fun with it.

And having fun with games is the most important feature of it.

Not everyone's going to find the same kind of "fun".

If someone told me there was hours of "fun" in getting GWAMM, I'd be pretty disappointed, because in actuality I don't find a whole lot of fun in hunting titles.

That's why I don't want you to look into ME due to me finding a certain enjoyment to it. Fun is always subjective and everyone's tastes are going to be different (as shown in this thread; you consider titles as content to go after, I do not).

Try it out on the basis that it's a good game, not that you may potentially spend days in it.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

For us it's content, having to get better and better at the game, having to try new things, having to come up with working strategies.

Just to correct you on this point as I think there's a prejudice going around that games is only mechanics/mechanisms. Content, and in particular in GW, is a lot more than what you and a few people here talk about. A lot more. You may not appreciate the graphics aspect as much as I do, or the storyline plus all its ramifications in quests, NPCs. But it's as much (and even more!) content as the game mechanics. I had much more fun going through the storylines, quests, BMPs, etc. than killing (big) stuff, winning matches (except when it involved a high level of cooperation), even if it contributed to my fun.

Winning is not the only valid goal, you can still have a lot of fun while not winning, being killed, just by playing, however imperfectly. On the other hand I do agree that getting better (which is not the same as "getting good", a topic I don't want to discuss here because it's utterly pointless) will mean for a lot of people a more pleasurable GW experience, but not when a "teacher" tells you "you have to have this level of skill or you won't get your diploma". As in RL, you get "better" because there are tangible benefits at the end of the road, not because it satisfies an academic discussion that a few "serious" gamers had on a fansite.

It's more a "learn this few things", "think about that aspect" or "look at that part of the screen" and then you'll have the tiny tools that will allow you to yourself transform your GW experience in the way you see fit (not the way other people see fit, unless you do that with a group of friends/guildies, or similarly minded people). To go back to the_jos's drawing example, it's like enabling apprentices to master the use of the pen, or understand how paint/ink interacts with the paper. You can then use these basic skills to do whatever you want with them, not be told that you should draw this or that because that's what people do. Power to the person, that's the moto of all good teachers .

I made the mistake to put in the title (and the OP, which many people didn't read carefully I guess) keywords that triggered common prejudices and misinterpretations. Players suck? Player skill? Teaching? And then there's been a deluge of off-topic (which, of course, were claimed to be on-topic because I'm the one who doesn't understand what I'm talking about) which goes back to the old topics debatted at length on Guru. Yeah, Guru is for toughies, and everyone know that when you're tough you're good, you're "in". The other ones are "out". And this is another part of the OP people missed: how do we create an inclusive community which "cares" about players, however good, bad, young, stupid, illiterate they are? A few of you here claim to have become good and even spread that around by helping newbies. Good, but my point is to move that to the next level, write a guide that will help a lot of people, make a tutorial on this aspect of the game where you're best at, gather online resources in a centralised and helpful way.

I've spent enough time attempting, without much success, to stir back this thread into its original direction, as I explained several times before. In a sense, this thread has taught me something about "vets", "experienced players", "skilled players" on Guru. I'm sure you'll reply to my post, and I'll actually leave you to chat, discuss, debate the topic you want (which is probably not the topic of this thread). Have fun.

[Bryant Again]

I wasn't aware we ever gave off that we may be completely pushing-aside everything else, if that be the case then I personally apologize.

What we're doing is focusing on a certain type of content, one correlated tightly to gameplay - and it's changed greatly, and many here believe it to be for the worse. While it's understandable for ANet wanting to cater more to the needs of those not terribly experienced in the game, it was achieved through a largely harmful way. And it wasn't the only way by far. Just off the top of my head can I think of a hundred better ways to cater to those players.

[Rocky Raccoon]

Originally Posted by DreamWind

So if I go play baseball and have fun striking out every time I am up to bat, I am playing the game correctly? Maybe I am, but if so I SUCK.

In baseball a good player(hitter) fails 70% of the time.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

Thinking is one thing, coding it is another ball game. Especially when 90% of the company is focusing on GW2 and because they long knew they had to evolve as gw1 engine is limited. It's the same exercise of finding the balance that fits both the company and the majority of the playerbase.

Well, maybe the playerbase could change itself. This was the (unachieved) purpose of this thread, which obviously met the wall named "why would I change? I've got my own fun, to each its own".

[the_jos]

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

A few of you here claim to have become good and even spread that around by helping newbies. Good, but my point is to move that to the next level, write a guide that will help a lot of people, make a tutorial on this aspect of the game where you're best at, gather online resources in a centralised and helpful way.

Fril,

At a certain point in 2006 (I think) I became the primary person for Tyrian map compares. I even made a huge wall of text about spots that about everyone above 95% seemed to miss. Part of it is still in the sticky.
Texmod changed the need for this.
But....
Helping out, writing that guide (on top of the original guide by Numa Pompilius) cost me a serious amount of time and comparing of close to 100 different 90%+ maps.
And this is not something to underestimate.

I can write a quick guide on something I'm good at, sure.
But it won't show the fine details and that's what matters a lot of times.
It's a bit like the exploration thing. People can and should be able to get at least 90% right by themself. After that they might need help, just saying 'hug the walls' is a waste of time for them. They don't know where to look.
When I took over comparing I refused to do < 98% maps.
Because the amount of missed spots is huge, it's easy to find them as player with the right resources. And at the end I made my posting about the frequently missed spot, since I was finding the same missing spots over and over again. Those should cover the last 3% roughly and we all know the maps have more than 100% to explore.

To understand why people 'fail' and where they should look takes a lot of time or insight in players minds.
I can make a starters guide on how to play mesmer in PvE but the true challenge is making people understand the weakness of mesmers in PvE and work around that. And that's a lot harder to explain (past the basics).
The same for playing PvE monk. I know why certain builds work better for me than others, but they are for specific situations. There is no generic build that always works (well, as long as you don't play push-the-red-bars-up).
I rely a lot on my experience here. I know they work, but can't explain the way I play. It's a bit of my drawing of eyes example I used earlier. I can draw one because I've drawn a huge number of them and looked at many more.
Don't ask me how I do that, it's like a Millipede explaining how to walk with that many legs. The moment you think about it it doesn't work anymore.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by the_jos

At a certain point in 2006 (I think) I became the primary person for Tyrian map compares. I even made a huge wall of text about spots that about everyone above 95% seemed to miss. Part of it is still in the sticky.
Texmod changed the need for this.
But....
Helping out, writing that guide (on top of the original guide by Numa Pompilius) cost me a serious amount of time and comparing of close to 100 different 90%+ maps.
And this is not something to underestimate.

You think I'm unaware of that? I'm experiencing it every single day in my job. Students (and all those that think "teachers suck and are a lazy bunch of socialist", ok a bit of caricature here ) see only the hours I'm spending in front of them, not the tenfold time I'm spending to prepare these hours. I wrote a short security guide for Guru, inspired from previous ones, and this also took me a chunk of time I could have spend playing the game.

To be slightly provocative (don't take it personally, this applies to all long posters here): just imagine we don't write walls of text here, but instead focus on writing guides. Similar amount of time and efforts for us, but spent towards "guiding" instead of simply "discussing". It benefits the community, and this comes back at us because we're going to meet, play with or against "better" players.

You know this works, because it has led thousands of players to use your (and Numa's) work on mapping. Don't look at the details, it's always a bad idea when you start thinking about big ideas.

But it won't show the fine details and that's what matters a lot of times.

That's not the point, the point is to help in a better way, not show perfection.

To understand why people 'fail' and where they should look takes a lot of time or insight in players minds.

Yes it does.

Don't ask me how I do that, it's like a Millipede explaining how to walk with that many legs. The moment you think about it it doesn't work anymore.

It's like an artist trying to explain how he draws, isn't it? Perfectly possible, but it doesn't mean that it's "your thing".

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

Well those two points are linked to eachother, especially in a game like GW. If it's a good game I'll spend years in it developping character(s).

I'm merely saying that there's little you can gather from hours played. People aren't going to find the same enjoyment as a game as someone else (case in point: person X plays hours and hours for the titles, person Y sees this, person Y finds out he hates it).

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

Thinking is one thing, coding it is another ball game. Especially when 90% of the company is focusing on GW2 and because they long knew they had to evolve as gw1 engine is limited. It's the same exercise of finding the balance that fits both the company and the majority of the playerbase.

Eeew, laziness is a pretty bad excuse. What I've thought of isn't correlated to new coding rather lengthening what they've done already in a few select instances. Best example is DoA normal mode revamp.

In other words, just some reworking of areas in normal mode to make for an easier transition to hard mode/harder areas, and if required a tone-down of those harder areas. What we have right now is the duct-tape fix, the "lazy" fix, that doesn't help or address the issues at all - in general, it just makes things worse.

Again, all of this that's been done would be perfectly understandable if GW did not have two distinct and separate settings. But it does. I can't think of a single good reason besides wanting to cater to those who want everything handed to them ASAP, and those people are certainly not in the same boat as those that simply want to see all of the game's areas and dungeons - to just have some fun.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

@ Bryant: I agree with you that a few places in the game should cater to the very experienced. DoA is a good example. However, how is the life team gonna accomplish that? They have limited resources and are generally working on things that improve the game for once again the largest part of the playerbase. The 'do more with less' philosophy.

That's part of the problem: you don't just appeal to the largest portion of the playerbase. You try to appeal to as many play styles as possible. Otherwise you're not aiming for a good, quality game. And again, these changes are very less for the majority of the playerbase and more for the minority of gimme-gimme-gimme's.

We've already given several things they can aim for to make the game better. There were plenty other paths ANet could've taken to not degrade the game and give a better chance at improving the playerbase. Instead they choose fit to halt it and throw a huge chunk of the content the harder areas could've provided down the crapper.

In regards to "how", a resource they have plenty of at this point is time. But I'd hope that was a developer who cared about their product would do their best to keep it in great condition.