What is more important to you in a team: Aptitude or Attitude?

Or, to make things super-clear with extreme examples (as I so love to):
Would you sooner team up with people who are very individually capable at the game, but are stuck-up, sociopathic arseholes who ignore the team-leader and abuse other members of the team whenever they make a mistake...
... Or would you rather team up with rather incapable newbs who are friendly, polite and willing to learn, though rather slow at doing so and essentially force you to pull most of the weight yourself to compensate for their lack of understanding of the game?


I'm aware that the extremes are rather few and far between. Most newbs tend to fall right into the n00b category and between them have all the brainpower of a rusty saucepan... AND total and utter sociopaths are unlikely to join up with a team in the first place....

But still. Not taking it so much at the extremes..... what is more sought after: less experience but friendlier or more experience and mild hostility?

It's not that simple, there're people who less experience and don't want to learn anything as well as more experience but still crap at playing the game. Well to answer your question, I would go for less experience but friendlier. They might wants to learn and become better at the game.

Most definitely the latter - kind and inexperienced. After all "PvE is easy," right? Most of it is, anyway. So therefore, you should be able to succeed about 99% of the time, and have fun doing it, with the kinder, more inexperienced person. In PvP, though, I kinda prefer the knowledgeable jerks, and just ignore their immature rants.

Attitude is everything. Aptitude can be trained, and people with good attitude comes built in with an ability to play nice and be social which are cornerstones of aptitude as well.

I prefer my guild and alliance. A mixture of fair to good players who all have a fantastic attitude and like to have fun.

Attitude is the most important, aptitude usually is only a matter of time.

For example, yesterday night, I and some guildies were trying The deep. We needed a BiP and an ele. We took them from int-district. They were good, ok. But, they were a pain in the ass, they were all the time taunting one of my friends: "He is so stupid and noob. Wearing a platemail makes you stupid, it is not my opinion, it is a real fact." I think that they dont even know that now all the max armors have insignias and can be fully customized.

Direct opposites as GW is a team game. Of those, attitude.

Never herohenched?

There are some folks out there who seem to carry the notion that they were born to be in charge... and that when things go wrong it is the fault of people who did not acknowledge their authority... They aren't "bad" at the game persay, but they won't fit in anything other than a leader role, and there is only room for one of those per party. One of them in charge of a group isn't necessarily a problem, but stick two of them in a group and all hell breaks loose.

I'd relate to this. I'm not entirely like that myself, but I carry some measure of it. I do tend to get very impatient if I feel the team leader is making exceptionally bad choices and if I have any heroes under my command I'll tend to make deviations here and there (such as deliberately aggroing a small group of enemies that are easily beaten rather than make a long and pointless trek all the way around the outside). That said, I don't much like being in charge as other than the monks, the team leader gets the blame if things go wrong.

We are all play on the same playground.

I would go with Polite Noobs.

QFT.

If I had to choose between one or the other, I'd also choose the latter. It's not that simple though, there aren't just two types of players out there.

I am currently in a guild with very few activity players so I have plenty of experience with PuG groups.

In my experience people who think they are great and show it seldom displayed their skills when in missions. They would usually die after couple of encounters then blame the tank for no tanking or the monk for not healing then leave. Your group will then be forced to resign or continue without them.

Whereas you can generally compete a mission with newbies who are welling to learn. It may take more time giving them instructions but they generally get the job done.

So I have to say attitude certainly beat aptitude.

Attitude above all else :-)

Attitude, hands down. You can go everywhere with people as long as they are willing to learn.

Yeah... what (s)he said.

Neither of course. Why choose between retards when capable people who are great to be around with exist ?

Edit: And no "but if you just had to" situations please. Because those never really happen, so unless all you want with this thread is theoretical wankery, its quite useless.

Stuck up people maybe, so often arseholes are nice people underneath, but the nice people are arseholes. Unless I'm in a specific mood, I won't hang around long enough to educate someone at the game. Again, it depends. Some people make a good impression regardless of if they're arseholes or not.

Well being a competent player with not a lot of time to play I would take the more experienced players and just put up with their jackassery because it will be less frustrating than wiping in a mission three times and wasting my limited amount of play time on incompetence.

Both. Generally the people with bad builds are also the idiots who refuse to change their leetsauce riposte necro build for anyone.

to be honest, I'd rather deal with neither and have a team of heros, but im stuck with heros and henchies...so i just get my guild leader to help me if i ever really need it!!!

but answer to ur question....The A-Holes cus there just like me(but i dont abuse ppl i just leave)

Aptitude, because if I wanted people who suck, I could just take heroes and they have absolutely no attitude!

I'm fine with people who have undesirable attitudes if they are good enough to warrant it. What burns me is the noobs who think they are hot shit when they are truly trash.