Curse

Tyris Requiem · Oct 03, 2011, 10:48 AM // 10:48

Ok so I was bored and figured I'd stir up trouble... I mean a healthy discussion ;P.

So I was thinking the other day what makes the difference between the top tier GvG player and those players who are still decent but not top tier... I have my own opinions on this which I will get to in a moment... I'm sure many of you are thinking its obvious... the top tier players simply have better micro/macro skills... and while this is true in almost all cases I think there is another key factor that plays a part.

Tactical Initiative - i.e. having the guts to make a tactical decision and communicate those actions to the team. The emphasis here is not just on making the decision but communicating it over vent so it can be cleared with your team.

For example a ranger sees an opportunity to push on your flag runner and your MoI snare immediately calls out that he has it covered and proceeds to shut down the rangers push. I have guested in many places in the lower tiers of GvG land and 9/10 times this just doesn't happen. Generally 1 of 2 things happens. 1) The runner stays quiet on vent the snare notices far too late to react... if at all... your runner gets raped 2) The runner shouts at a snare or frontline to put pressure on the ranger to force him to back off. The reaction still comes late.... the runner still gets raped but not as hard as in case #1.

What I'm basically saying the difference is top players don't need to be tactically microed 24/7. Maybe im being cynical but meh

Other peoples opinions?

Missing HB · Oct 03, 2011, 10:59 AM // 10:59

That's pretty right, but the main problem i would say, is being too dependent on what caller says on vent...
Me and some other players rarely ever went on it, we just learned what to do and sometimes we're doing things naturally... and usually then, when you get o nvent, you don't have to be microedd....but yes, it's pretty astounishing when you see what some players are doing when you aren't using communication or aren't telling them what to do....

tealspikes · Oct 03, 2011, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyris Requiem

What I'm basically saying the difference is top players don't need to be tactically microed 24/7. Maybe im being cynical but meh

Other peoples opinions?

Most of it has to do with pure experience and team coordination, more so than individual smarts or skills (although a skilled backline can carry a team quite far). Top players have seen x situation hundreds of times and know exactly what they are supposed to do, or what the best options are. Your emphasis is on the decision maker, but it has just as much to do with his team acting/reacting accordingly. They know exactly where/when/what he is going to do it because either they have very good communication or they just know their teammate really well. Therefore an experienced team knows exactly how best to support him.

My soccer coach used to tell us mediocre teams lose skilled teams, skilled teams lose to well coordinated teams, and well coordinated teams lose to lucky teams, but unfortunately he cannot teach luck.

Sun Fired Blank · Oct 04, 2011, 04:11 AM // 04:11

Quote:

What I'm basically saying the difference is top players don't need to be tactically microed 24/7.

Quote:

Me and some other players rarely ever went on it, we just learned what to do and sometimes we're doing things naturally... and usually then, when you get o nvent, you don't have to be microedd....

Quote:

Top players have seen x situation hundreds of times and know exactly what they are supposed to do, or what the best options are.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

This is the heart of the Euro mentality, and it's WRONG. Many of the "top" Euro guilds rely on this "being awesome" nonsense and they suck because of it. It's the stupidest mentality on the face of the planet.

The hardest part of GvG is convincing eight people to stick to a single plan as quickly as possible without screaming at each other and holding an hour-long conference. If the plan isn't working, then you have to get everyone into another one as quickly as possible to try and salvage the situation.

Most of the "high end" GvG matches I've lost have come from the stupid "I'm awesome, so I know exactly what I have to do" thought, and then realizing that up to eight people had the same stupid thought, and they're now doing completely different things.

The most infuriating part is when you can realize they might all have made an absolutely correct decision, but relatively speaking, they're all wrong because none of them are willing to concede to each other and pick a single course of action because, hell, that would be an admission of inferiority, and then the shit hits the fan.

urania · Oct 04, 2011, 09:30 AM // 09:30

I am certain high-level coordination has been mentioned and greatly emphasised somewhere... I also believe that your statement holds true mostly for wanna-be's, not real high end guilds, and mostly applies for the last 2-3 years of GW.

Moreover, you're giving the yanks far too much credit, as usual - making your points a purely euro affliction is just plain wrong and stupid.

floor · Oct 04, 2011, 03:48 PM // 15:48

The top teams are those which understand the benefit of flag pushing. For the last 2+ years, he who flag pushes most, wins.

Players micro skill is generally less important than the overall team strategy too, people place an extraordinary amount of emphasis on things like weapon swapping and quarter stepping when in reality things like knowing how and when to split, or who to attack, when to push on the flagger etc, are all far more important.

The 1 other thing that better teams do, that bad teams dont, is clean the frontline. Monks who dont clean frontline are not doing their job, even if ur team doesnt actually die. Blind frontliners dont kill, if you dont kill, you lose.

Vanquisher · Oct 04, 2011, 04:10 PM // 16:10

The better players have and always will always be those who try to improve their play and learn from their experiences to better accomplish their job (whatever it may be) or the teams overall goal. I'd consider that and team synergy is what builds a successful team over time, though obviously certain players are good enough to come in and do a job.

(Not being Euro helps, too).

kedde · Oct 17, 2011, 12:26 AM // 00:26

I believe the biggest factor in a game such as guildwars where there's less complexity in relation to what can instantly and fatally punish you in terms of pregames strategy, positional errors or micro errors it'll have to be consistency.
With very few scenarios you can't score a comeback from and few instant build losses the path to going from decent to breaking through comes with being consistent in every area of the game. Generally, the player who makes the least mistakes will always triumph over the player who makes more mistakes, even if he also pulls some amazing plays outta his ass from time to time.

A concept we often used to discuss was the concept of player personality at large reflecting how you are as a player, and if you can ever become a dominant force. Basically, a minimum of raw mechanical skill will always be required, reflexes, APM multitasking and the ability to stay focused tactically.
However, most people can reach a reasonable level in all of those categories but still never become truly outstanding players. What they lack compared to very few people is the attitude and charisma to, with authority, go through with decisionmaking on an instinctive level.

You need to not only be good at the actual game, but to become an excellent player capable of carrying and properly teach others you need to be a leader. Someone who just RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing intuitively takes responsibility and makes the rest follow.

The most difficult thing about the entire idea is that it not only requires you to be good, it also requires you to be good enough for your ego to not be ridiculous when taking control.

So many guilds at lower or midtiers have failed due to not having anyone take control. They either lack someone capable or anyone with just enough confidence to do it. This is so often seen when teams crumble in situations they're not comfortable with. A team executing a terrible tactic together is still better than a team running around like headless chicken because something that shouldn't have happened, happened.

Comparatively speaking, a leader personality in real life will have to do the same. The best analogy we could come up with would be a group of people with no previous relations find themselves in a life threatening situation. For every single person, you pose the question what do you plan to do?
Most will likely be answering to gather people and conjure up a consensus on what to do. However, in situations so urgent and important you simply need to be able to act instinctively regardless of it being right or wrong, and at the same time make sure the rest follow suit.

In Guildwars terms. You need to instinctively react to a split situation, otherwise the point is moot and you've already allowed the opponent to achieve an advantage. Loads of people have to have someone tell them to react, or how to react. This seperates the sheep from the motherRED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing wolves.
Don't get me wrong, you can't have an entire team worth of wolves and expect to have a good team synergy. There are smart sheep and dumbass sheep, but you really need a leader personality. And in my mind, only the leaders are the truly good players.

ErrantVenture · Oct 19, 2011, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Being aggressive makes a massive difference. Too many (new) players today are content to sit at stand and try to win an 8v8 slugfest. Most of the time that's going to be a 50/50 shot at success at best. You have to play agressively: push flaggers hard and split when you can so that you force the enemy team into situations where they make a mistake. If you're a dervish, fire/water ele, or range, pushing BALLS DEEP into enemy territory will give your team a massive advantage: either you'll be left alone to hamper the flagger and push a boost, the entire enemy team will fall back giving you a position advantage, or the other team will screw up and react poorly to the push.

tl;dr Play aggressive and take risks. With the massive powercreep in damage + pressure, the rawr mentality of playing conservative for a lord damage/standard 8v8 win just doesn't work anymore.

floor · Oct 19, 2011, 03:20 PM // 15:20

^errantventure

Pushing balls deep is fine if u have monks good enough to support it, people often forget pushing hard is often consideraly more energy intensive for ur own backline than usual. With 90% of current monks letting you die in under 2 minutes because they havent learnt how to deal with dervishes/invoke yet, rambo style tactics can be a very risky play.

tealspikes · Oct 19, 2011, 05:45 PM // 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErrantVenture

If you're a dervish, fire/water ele, or range, pushing BALLS DEEP into enemy territory will give your team a massive advantage: either you'll be left alone to hamper the flagger and push a boost, the entire enemy team will fall back giving you a position advantage, or the other team will screw up and react poorly to the push.

Or you'll just have a 60'ed dervish 10 minutes into the game. It really depends on how well your monks can handle it. A strong backline allows you to play recklessly and get away with it, but if you have a weak backline then not only are you putting enormous pressure on your monks, but it could very easily be your team that reacts poorly to your own push and gets slaughtered.

Gladiator Steven · Oct 19, 2011, 07:16 PM // 19:16

experience makes the difference.

ErrantVenture · Oct 20, 2011, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by floor

^errantventure

Pushing balls deep is fine if u have monks good enough to support it, people often forget pushing hard is often consideraly more energy intensive for ur own backline than usual. With 90% of current monks letting you die in under 2 minutes because they havent learnt how to deal with dervishes/invoke yet, rambo style tactics can be a very risky play.

Of course I'm not advocating playing beyond the means of your backline, but you can't let yourself be limited by a lack of confidence in your monks either. You have to play aggressively (not recklessly) or you'll end up losing because your monks won't be able to stand up to pressure at stand.

tl;dr your monks don't have to be d9 + brock to push flags, you can (and need to) play aggressively without playing recklessly.

floor · Oct 20, 2011, 08:29 AM // 08:29

Im not really sure i agree although this is kind of a grey area.

My first thought is that teams at lower ratings with worse backlines generally dont flag push a huge amount because as you already said, the players react poorly to their own push resulting in deaths. Particularly with builds such as triple melee where defensive options are limited anyway..

The majority of lesser guilds are just playing spike i guess, not only does having big midline damage help to carry slightly dodgy frontliners, but this type of build generally packs several copies of blind and other defence to help support ur monks.

Ofc option 3 is split builds, which are probably the easiest of them all to at least play at a functional level (assuming u equip enough snares in ur build). The other team is forced to react with to ur split with some damage characters usually, and then run the flag on 1 of their remaining frontliners who you then of course snare infinitely (ie - flag push). In situations like this its virtually impossible to take any deaths. Its worth noting that the whole "lol euro" mentality developed from this since no 8v8 build can really deal with a split build played well. Rather than euros playing badly, we simply just get out snared until eventually losing the match. I'm possibly going off on a tangent here, but i never quite understood how americans can say stuff like triple melee is boring/lame, yet enjoy running 9000 snares and just flag pushing whilst simultaneously ganking ur base :/ An argument debating the lesser of two evils imo.

I think kedde was more or less on the right lines earlier when he said that a leader/figurehead character is required within the team, and tbh i guess this is true. Whilst its fair to say that at the top level, players will need to be micro'd less and will do a lot more stuff automatically, each top team still generally has 1 main voice that is ordering people around, making sure everyone sticks to the same gameplan. There is a common misconception actually that good teams dont need to be micro'd, which is totally false imo. The same basic idea translates to new up and coming guilds, if you have 1 player who can make big plays, and micro/shout at the rest of ur team so that they stop doing stupid stuff and start to do useful things instead, your team can actually go a long way without really being any good at all, just because by following the instructions of 1 key person, ur all pulling in the same direction.

Note: Its worth mentioning that this key figure/caller in your team does NOT need to be a frontliner, anyone can call tactics from any position. The more important factor is that you're experienced enough to make quick decisions, and that the rest of the team respects you enough, to actually listen and then carry out your instructions.