Curse

Fril Estelin · Jan 28, 2008, 01:56 PM // 13:56

The more I read discussions on the DCS, the more I realise that people may not be as honest as they seem. Only those that mention what an improvement it is seem honest IMHO. I can imagine why you'd want people not to see you as "Dishonorable" if you've been hexed (after AB, one guy had the D-hex and was wondering why he couldn't AB again, I explained it to him and he seemed to accept it)

Now that the D-hex is here, no point discussing subjective opinions about it. The OP is subjective, it is basically saying "D-hex does not work because I got D-hexed and not the leechers"! Well, all cases are looked by Anet/NCSoft staff so may be yours just got examined earlier than them.

It'd be more interesting to discuss, for example, how many times people have been able to convince other party members to report a leecher? Or if it was rather the contrary, difficult to convince them?

bhavv · Jan 28, 2008, 02:21 PM // 14:21

Well people are easilly convinced to report me for saccing my monk. But wait, I thought you dont need a monk to win!

And I sac with lively naomei, so im up again and running around casting spells like infuse, but I still get /reported by 80% of people.

And no this isnt a complaint or a QQ, its pointing out how easilly people type /report.

Now if you sac on a necro, you wont get reported anywhere near as much as saccing a monk. Its just how the monk is the first to get yelled at when people die cos they over extend or cos the monk is dazed. People still rely on monks more then any other class in RA, yet they used to complain about people raging when they have no monk.

Medion · Jan 28, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

I got the dishonorable hex for the first time yesterday (didn't know about it, had been gone when it was implemented).
To be honest, I think it's silly. If I know the team has lost and no one has a res left, why do I have to stay untill the game is over? Anyway, it's only 10 minutes which gives me some time to do something else.

Quote:

Now that the D-hex is here, no point discussing subjective opinions about it.

I thought we were discussing the objective ones

EDIT: RotteN, I definately agree that you can't judge a team from the start. When I leave a team "full of fail" (as bhavv put it), it's a team with monks who only cast healing breeze, warriors who frenzy through spiteful spirit + empathy, rangers who cast troll unguent with 20 health left and being hit at by a warrior just to give a few examples.

RotteN · Jan 28, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Guess what? If im going to leave a team full of fail in RA, im going to leave the team full of fail.

how are you going to determine said "fail" ?

small example :

2 teams, i'll just give you the composition (because that's the only thing you see at the start anyway) :

A (1)
A/E (2)
P/W (3)
E/A (4)

and

Mo/E (1)
W/E (2)
E/Mo (3)
A/D (4)

which one is "fail" and which isn't ?

those are 2 actual teams i've been in, and guess what, the first got 12 consecs (yes, we even won in TA) while the 2nd didn't even make it to 5. Stop judging so fast. No one is forcing anyway "to play with him". By playing RA you chose to do so : you play with random people. If you want more control, play TA, or HA, or GvG, or HB.

Fril Estelin · Jan 28, 2008, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

People still rely on monks more then any other class in RA, yet they used to complain about people raging when they have no monk.

IMHO you're getting subjective, as in the OP. I didn't have experiences like these in RA with monks, but I won't dismiss you view based on this fact.

I don't believe people easily report. And even if they were, I believe that the staff at the other end of the /report stick are smart enough not to ban anyone based on subjective reports ("ban him, he didn't res me!") but rather on the intersection of subjective reports (where there is often bits and pieces of truth).

D-hex is the way forward, because it's semantic. Trying to push morale issues outside of the game is a fail, in a more or less long term, because given the big size of any MMO population (and also the fact that part of it is very young and possibly not under adult's supervision) problems are bound to happen. It's not enough to claim you did this or that in good faith, you have to look at the perspective of other people, and this requires a lot of experience and maturity.

Fortunately people got the best out of /report, some nasty people got their gameplay ruined for ruining others, and I guess that some innocent have been caught in the middle. But with proper help, like this discussion, we'll hopefully put things back "in order".

Fril Estelin · Jan 28, 2008, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medion

If I know the team has lost and no one has a res left, why do I have to stay untill the game is over?

The answer is: because it's the way to get to people who ruin other's gameplay by leaving too early. And this is not determined, at the moment, by the availability of res sigs. There is surely room for improvement, as you suggest, but I'm pretty sure Anet is not going to do that unless a significant part of the population screams and shouts, which it is not.

Quote:

Anyway, it's only 10 minutes which gives me some time to do something else.

Good way of thinking

Quote:

When I leave a team "full of fail" (as bhavv put it), it's a team with monks who only cast healing breeze, warriors who frenzy through spiteful spirit + empathy, rangers who cast troll unguent with 20 health left and being hit at by a warrior just to give a few examples.

Everyone is going to come here and tell us, another time, what "they think" (in all honesty, and I believe you!) is fail or not fail. I've seen people explain how they turned a terrible RA team that was almost loosing into a win (I've seen AB teams failing during the game and then coming back with some good organisation). I know that there are people who know little and don't learn much from failures, but I doubt that this is a significant portion of the GW population (it may seem so because you RA a lot and always see them a lot? one explanation among others).

As someone was very smartly saying on a different thread here on AB, the situation may only get better if "good" people start helping "bad" players, instead of simply telling them they're "bad". Whatever "good" and "bad" are.

stretchs · Jan 28, 2008, 03:00 PM // 15:00

I like the idea of the Dishonorable Hex, as leavers were always annoying, when you have a leaver prior to even barely being loaded.

But I would like to revisit a point someone made earlier in this thread. I would like to see the randomness of RA become a bit less random and a bit more fair. I know all of us have spent days/nights where it seems like every team but your own gets a monk, 10-15 matches without and so on. I like the idea of allowing 1 of a class per group. I know that would be problematic for people doing out of cookie cutter things like the smiter monk, the channeling/Spirit Strength rit or even the odd healing dervish, but it would probably allow people to be a bit happier with their day in day out feelings toward RA. And yes i know if you want a balanced team go to TA argument applies, but so often when newer players come to the game they dont have the experience to get into TA groups, or make it past 1 loss in a TA group so RA tends to be their only hope.

Shadowspawn X · Jan 28, 2008, 03:35 PM // 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamRunner

Rank = Skill?

I am intrigued by this reason that Rank can equal to the amount of skill a person has in Guild Wars PvP. Please by all means give a more detail reason on why this is, I am sure lots of people are going to agree.

In a nutshell it breaks down to why no rank = no skill

1) no rank = you don't play much and have no experience = no skill
2) no rank = you play lots and don't win which = no skill

Inversely we can deduce that rank= skill, understand now?

Prof Of Black · Jan 28, 2008, 03:43 PM // 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by RotteN

how are you going to determine said "fail" ?

small example :

2 teams, i'll just give you the composition (because that's the only thing you see at the start anyway) :

A (1)
A/E (2)
P/W (3)
E/A (4)

and

Mo/E (1)
W/E (2)
E/Mo (3)
A/D (4)

which one is "fail" and which isn't ?

those are 2 actual teams i've been in, and guess what, the first got 12 consecs (yes, we even won in TA) while the 2nd didn't even make it to 5. Stop judging so fast. No one is forcing anyway "to play with him". By playing RA you chose to do so : you play with random people. If you want more control, play TA, or HA, or GvG, or HB.

The professions dont even matter.
It's about the player inside.
What about a monk with smiting skills?

@ the first one, you could have had pr0s in your team or was just lucky
@ the second one, the monk fails or you had to face a rly good team.

~Prof.

Fril Estelin · Jan 28, 2008, 03:55 PM // 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X

In a nutshell it breaks down to why no rank = no skill

1) no rank = you don't play much and have no experience = no skill
2) no rank = you play lots and don't win which = no skill

Inversely we can deduce that rank= skill, understand now?

The logical structure is perfectly correct. But: assertion 1 is not true, AND the adequate comparison method is an implication, not an equality (double implication, i.e., a=b if and only if a=>b and b=>a). Rank is a measure of achievement , not of skill, though having skills will undoubtedly lead you to a rank. In other words: skill => rank but rank /=> skill.

You may be good at something but you're not doing it often/a lot. You may be good but always end up in a group of inexperienced/stupid players. You may even not be so good, but are very committed to a title so you got your rank by only winning 1 or 2% of your matches, or even worse by getting very lucky to get on groups with very experienced players.

XiaoTheBlade · Jan 28, 2008, 03:58 PM // 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X

In a nutshell it breaks down to why no rank = no skill

1) no rank = you don't play much and have no experience = no skill
2) no rank = you play lots and don't win which = no skill

Inversely we can deduce that rank= skill, understand now?

And if you don't play HA?

Prof Of Black · Jan 28, 2008, 04:16 PM // 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by XiaoTheBlade

And if you don't play HA?

You fail

~Prof.

truemyths · Jan 28, 2008, 04:30 PM // 16:30

I too am frustrated by continued leechers who get reported and come back. There's a few 'infamous' ones in aspenwood luxon side.

I've started reporting as bots vs. leechers now. Since if they're leeching like that over and over they must have written a macro or something.

Shadowspawn X · Jan 28, 2008, 04:43 PM // 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

You may be good at something but you're not doing it often/a lot.

Which means you rank up slow, but doesn't mean you have no rank. Its impossible to be good and not rank up.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

You may be good but always end up in a group of inexperienced/stupid players.

Doesn't matter, when you good you can carry scrubs, its all part of being good.Its very easy for 2 good players to carry two scrubs to a glad or for a good caller/tactician/strategist to lead a team of scrubs to halls as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

You may even not be so good, but are very committed to a title so you got your rank by only winning 1 or 2% of your matches, or even worse by getting very lucky to get on groups with very experienced players.

Both of these scenarios will make you good. The latter playing with skilled experienced players will bring up your skill level faster than any other method and the former indicates thousands of matches played of which its impossible not to improve after such exposure. Now if you want to hypothetical that the person is a retard and has no ability to learn then the discussion is pointless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XiaoTheBlade

And if you don't play HA?

Doesn't matter GvG , Gladiator arenas, and HA all the good players have rank. Champ points, glad points, and fame still say skilled. While nothing still says n00b.

Fril Estelin · Jan 28, 2008, 05:01 PM // 17:01

Since you only commented on the second paragraph of my reply, I guess you either ignored the first part or agreed with it. Since you prefered to comment on the "example" paragraph, I'll do the same:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X

Which means you rank up slow, but doesn't mean you have no rank. Its impossible to be good and not rank up.

Yes it is possible, except that no one will ever see how good you are, simply because you don't want to play much.

Quote:

Doesn't matter, when you good you can carry scrubs, its all part of being good.Its very easy for 2 good players to carry two scrubs to a glad or for a good caller/tactician/strategist to lead a team of scrubs to halls as well.

2 good can balance for 2 bad, but not 1 good for 3 bads.

Quote:

Both of these scenarios will make you good. The latter playing with skilled experienced players will bring up your skill level faster than any other method and the former indicates thousands of matches played of which its impossible not to improve after such exposure. Now if you want to hypothetical that the person is a retard and has no ability to learn then the discussion is pointless.

Well if you only see what you want to see, the discussion is pointless too, isn't it? My point is that a player with 5000h of play and spending 5 hours to get one glad point, is at the same "rank" as the one that played 1000h and spending 1h to get a glad point. The 2nd one is more "skilled" or luckier, yet they have the same rank.

Quote:

Doesn't matter GvG , Gladiator arenas, and HA all the good players have rank. Champ points, glad points, and fame still say skilled. While nothing still says n00b.

Just FYI, in the history of the netiquette and the typical net discussions, there used to be a difference between "noob" and "newbie", where the first would be stupid and the second one simply inexperienced because new to the scene/game. We can see more and more people confusing the two and it's so sad because it ruins the experience of new players, who probably have among them potentially very skilled players.

As I understand it, teams play not only "the game" in GvG/HA but a different game that requires "skills" different from the one we're discussing here: know the "fashionable" builds (to the point where one wonders if someone can become "good" simply by acting as a robot with the "good" builds), the smurfs guilds, and other "tricks" that make this game less "technical" and more a question of context. Of course, I could be wrong or misinterpreting information, I only read about this here and never played GvG/HA.

But no need to be there to "feel" the difference, and in particular the condescending tone (even if it's not indented as something mean). A game with numbers but without a spirit has no meaning, rank is not skill. It's exactly as in PvE: no need to tell me how much XP or titles you have, it's only when playing that one is able to show he is skilled.

MsMassacre · Jan 28, 2008, 05:01 PM // 17:01

so instead of no monk = leave, now no monk = forced to waste 5-10 minutes in what you know is a pointless losing battle because nobody has the brains to resign.

I fail to see how this is an improvement.

Fril Estelin · Jan 28, 2008, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by MsMassacre

... because nobody has the brains to resign.

It takes no brain to resign. It does take brains to win a game, and even more despite the odds against you. I already read posts from players who did this, turn a bad situation into a good one. These are the really good players, whose skills are so large that they can adapt to many different situations, and still win. The "win counter" does not tell you about this, a win against totally stupid players earns the same reward as the one where you overturned the situation.

DreamRunner · Jan 28, 2008, 05:27 PM // 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowspawn X

In a nutshell it breaks down to why no rank = no skill

1) no rank = you don't play much and have no experience = no skill
2) no rank = you play lots and don't win which = no skill

Inversely we can deduce that rank= skill, understand now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyrein

clarifying it for the people oblivious to sarcasm (yes they actually exist)

Just making sure you got the sarcasm, which after many posts later I tried to emphasis by pointing it out. Oh well, Kyreins' post was true in the end.

But to my understanding is that, my point before was that the number in your rank means how "skilled" you are. This was the point that I directed across towards bhavv in that he think he is skilled because he has rank 4 glad. Which from my experience with him on Guru, I can assume that his understanding Guild Wars in PvP and PvE, is not very good. From this example, I can later assume from persona experience as well as experience from the encounter with bhavv is that the rank number meaning how "skilled" you are isn't a reliable souce. As well, I have met some really skilled players who are only rank 2 and 3 glad, yet they have a good understand to what Team Arenas and PvP is.

This isn't only seen in Team Arenas, its very much seen in HA as well. Although I don't like to participate towards the Heroes Ascent, I do see that many high ranking guild members do have only rank 3 in their Hero Title.

BoondockSaint · Jan 28, 2008, 05:49 PM // 17:49

Personally I had not done arenas since the hex was put into place until this weekened. For the few hours I played I felt the hex greatly improved the RA experience.

Once when we had 2 monk rather then 1 or both leaving like what would happen previously we kept on and auctually won 7 matches. My best team was one with no monk just a dervish, warrior, necro, and ele, we had so much damage output we lasted for 12 or so rounds.

Though I will argree that occasionally I ran into a very poorly constructed team and our mending wammo kept running around while the other team had no speed boosts. You know what I did, I left because the hex does not kick in right away.

Finally I truly enjoy the time limit, it allows for plenty of time to play and keeps the matches reasonable.

Vazze · Jan 28, 2008, 06:25 PM // 18:25

The problem is not dishonorable: when I get teamed with 3 healer and a necro and the necro says "uh-oh, lets try it" and one of the monk replies "ok". In other words half the players there do not have the basic understanding of the game.
If you ask me, it is perfectly ok to give these folks (who are apparently active on forums too) a pvp arena but why the only one that is a "no hassle instant fight" style PvP?!