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

I would rather have a player with a good attitude and willingness to learn and listen rather than some "leetsause" peice of .... who thinks they know everything and yells at everyone. Let me share to of my experiances in one of the most unforgiving areas in the game, DOA... before the aspect got taken away in easy mode. Foundary, need I say more? Anyway the group I was in had a tank, he was a bit green behind the ears but he did a good job in my book at doing his job. However, this tard monk in the group did not think so. Every other sentence out of his mouth was an insult to the tank, the tank got fed up after about an hour of this and stole the "leet" players titan gem drop until he apologized. The player apologized got his gem back, promptly called us pve #$@@ (insert a string of explitives there) and flaunted he was a member of a gvging guild (which sucks by the way) and raged. We attempted to continue, and failed. Nothing was gained and it really really turned me off to pugs in general as it made us all miserable the entire time. He was a decent monk, still on my ignore list to this day, but I rather have a slightly less experianced player with better attitude. Situation two: take a team of guildies down to the same place. NONE of them have been before, most are a bit green to guild wars in general, no vent, TS or any of that rubbish. Heck I even take a MESMER, when all that mesmer hate was going on. I explained what we were doing, what was happening, what to watch out for, and they listened and executed the plan. It was a bit slow moving, as they did not always get it completely right (but they made the effort and learned from each experiance) at first but towards the end we really started rolling and got our gems no problem. All and all everyone left happy and infact wanted to do it again when they had time.

Moral of the story, play games to have fun, not to listen to some idiot moan and groan about players making small mistakes. It is alright to point them out incase they did not know. There is a difference in a learning experiance and simply being an !@#hat. In the end it weighs down to an hour and half of pain and agnoy or 2 hours of fun. Which would you choose? I know I would take the fun.

aptitude
thats cool some people like to babysit noobs but i dont. i like to do my own things in gw pve solo mostly and then i go pvp and don't like losing. i dont like to lose. if theres assholes in the group they're either good or bad at gw. the gw community isnt as black and white as you put it. but to stay to your topic, i'd take a bunch of capable arseholes over a bunch of grinding noobs any day

The phrase "play to win" generally has specific connotations attached to it. The idea that it generally conveys is one where the person is playing only for the purpose of winning, eschewing all other facets of play. The person who goes ballistic, screaming and raging in pitiful digital vengeance when someone gets a bad pull and wipes a party or someone makes a mistake and costs a PvP team a victory.

"Playing to win" is a specific phrase, in other words, that denotes the idea that the only purpose in playing a game is to be the victor. That, to me, is the hieght of futility in a video game that will, someday, go offline and take all of the temporary digital "accomplishments" of its players along with it.

These people were "playing to win" and are the types I will just never understand in all my years on this planet:

I don't care if those people are the best in the game and being on their team will guarantee me elite spoils and legendary fame across the Guild Wars universe. If I'm in a team like that all of a sudden, I'm going to "play for fun" and actively undermine them for my own amusement, because winning isn't fun if you have to play with impotent 12 year olds with entitlement complexes in order to do it :\

False dichotomy. There are other options. Don't be obtuse.

A player's adaptability and competitiveness are two different things, a good player always learn from his/her mistakes and always use his knowledge and wisdom to solve problems, a skilled player never "waste time wondering why things went wrong"; instead you should argue that they have the "drive and dedication" to solve problems which general laid-back attitude players have not.

And try eternal grove HM with pugs, you will want aptitude over attitude after a few failures, after all, aptitude gets things done.

The ultimate point a skilled player is trying to make, is not I-am-better-than-you elitism.

If I may quote from one of favorite my professors; when you solve an equation, but the solution is a mess, it is most-likely wrong, but if you solve an equation with clear and clean solutions, then it is most-likely right.

For everything, there is always a few right ways to do it and a few wrong ways to do it, the wrong ways require more effort, less efficient use of resources, cost more time, and "less harmonic" therefore messy. People train and discipline themselves to be good, to be efficient, to be knowledgeable and to learn and adapt from their own and others' mistakes. Going backwards, even in life, you have people who don't care as it is not his job, not his work, not his responsibility to cooperate with others, learn to be skilled and therefore not be able to help others, ultimately a departure from excellence and disciplined harmony.

A car has many parts, if engine has the drive power but requires a high temper, we always have radiator to cool it down, try a radiator who says:"you know what? I work fine in home appliance section or as a home heater, life is larger than being the engines' babysitter, I prefer to work with some parts who has good attitude, so I don't have to be working so hard or be frustrated at some stupid and arrogant part like the engine." Then you have a dysfunctional team, how is that gonna achieve anything, in any field in the world? Why should we encourage that attitude in any part of our lives, whether it is in a game or not? Substitute that logic with monks who melees with hammers and warriors carrying staff to cast meteor showers, if no one is doing what they are supposed to do, the team breaks that harmony, and the problems this brings, is more revealing when going towards more challenging situations.

Remember if a person knows things, you learn from him because it takes you to excellence, he saves you time and effort to avoid mistakes, even though you do not have the experience and expertise to understand how. Respect it, learn it, use it, appreciate it.

heh i usually just continue on as before but i quietly let out my mini kanaxai or panda out . ..

don't really understand why people think money is all that in this game when you can get pretty much all perfect armor and weapons for less than 20k if you want to ignore looks.

umm don't all online games come with a warning that experience may change with online play? having the servers shut down would be included in that i think . ..

Some people here think that 'wanting to win' is a bad thing and is the same as flaming everybody you think is bad. This is NOT true. There is a huge difference between the people playing for a win. Some should go of their high horses, but most of them enjoy what they are doing and have fun with other people.

If you like to spend hours to teach a noob what skills to take, fine, of course.

Yes, but the thread is about a clear dichotomy: if you had to chose someone with a bad attitude but great skill, or someone with low skill but a great attitude.

My point is just that I prefer to avoid arseholes no matter how "accomplished" they are at the game. If you can have the best of both worlds, that's even better!

I have a bizarre mix of Ascalon, Knight's, and Gladiator's armor on my oldest character, and it's dyed all sorts of weird, clashing colors because of times I had 10g dyes in my inventory and needed space for more valuable drops.

Doesn't bother me any if people think I'm a broke n00b. I'd rather spend all my money on Guild Hall "drinking parties" anyway.

You'd lose.

The game WILL shut down some day. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when" because it's simply pragmatic. Some day there won't be enough players left to make it worthwhile to keep the servers running. And, while I'm no lawyer, I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that after several years of gameplay you hadn't gotten a reasonable value out of your $50 purchase.

Yea, but the question that started the thread draws a clear dichotomy that I think you have to keep in mind to keep a clear context for those responses. Given either a jerk or a joke, which do you prefer?

I've met lots of people in the game that are old players with lots of experience and are quite pleasant, but we're not talking about them right now

I prefer the people like me, who just don't talk regardless of what happens. Oh wait...thats what I have heroes for!

I am in no way trying to alter your opinion. But my point stands; in-game attitude is appreciated in both parties, while skills are essential.

I don't think I get the point your driving at. Are you saying that, forced to choose, you would rather have skill over attitude?

Attitude doesn't really bother me because it's an online game, so anyone who says anything insulting or annoying has very little base to stand on, and good players are usually more concerned with executing their skills and spells as quickly and efficiently as possible. Very few have the ability to type while being part of a challenging mission or elite area and since I don't own vent, I don't hear players either...in the rare occasions I do PUG.

With that in mind, I'd choose skill over attitude anytime. It's true a lot of elite players are arrogant bastards but a good percentage are also very nice. Plus, I'm sure others have mentioned it but I'll end by saying that attitude and skill isn't a clearly defined line.

You can have newbies who are very polite or extremely rude, and the same goes for the veterans out there.

I would say PvP is Aptitude and PvE is Attitude.

Attitude.

I remember needing a couple of bonuses on a few missions in Kryta back before heroes. I had tried to PUG with some people that knew the missions. They kept blowing off the bonuses even though they said they were m+b all the way. I finally got a group together of people who had never done the mission before. They were clearly not very experienced, but they were very eager to get the bonus and followed instructions to a T. It may have been a little slower, but it was flawless.

I also remember giving up on the final mish in Prophecies for so long because I went in with one group that had two people who thought they were awesome and were bragging about their accomplishments. They ended up screaming and cussing at each other the whole time, never once targeting and enemy. We wiped on the second mob. If that is what a skilled anti-social player is like, I will choose the attentive, curteous, teachable noob.

I have frequently wiped on missions with noobs, but I have ALWAYS enjoyed wiping with a noob group more than succeeding with an anti-social group. The noobs are always ready to pick themselves up and go again and fix whatever happened. Nothing in PvE is hard, so there is an extremely small number of people that cannot learn what needs to be learned.

I can't make an argument without providing the context.

In a given situation like failed a mission 20 times because of pugging with a bunch of really nice and fun newbies, don't you start to wonder how to beat this mission the right way? Wouldn't you start to consider stand a know-it-all asshole (provided he does know-it-all, or at least more than you) for a round to get through this mission? Wouldn't you consider that the possibility that you can gain this knowledge to help other newbies? Wouldn't you also think that it was your prejudice against anyone with skills but irritating personalities has stopped you from advancing and enjoying more content of this game?

Given your two examples, no doubt Attitude.

But has someone else already pointed out, things usually are not that "black and white".

I've met load's of skilled players that were friendly, helpful, 100% competent, and on the opposite lot's of "newbies" that were stuck up, unwilling to learn, pretty much being a a-ho..

Exactly. It's not so cut and dried. But do I think a bad attitude will contribute more toward failure than success.

I think the real issue becomes, what would you rather have, having fun or playing competitvely and winning. IF you are with a noob, chances are that you will lose, but it might be fun to have a lackey :-). They rile me up sometimes since they set the entire team back, and result in me having to redo things OVER and OVER.

When playing with those snotty powerful players, its really fun to win :-). Sometimes id rather be a kiss ass and win with a good player just to get it over with after playing a mission 1000 times, the point of the game just gets boring. Pretty much Thunderhead peak in my case.

In the end i stand by my former comment, Aptitude is to get something done, but you should always try something first with some nice friendly people and see where it takes you. If you don't succeed get an experienced player to help you and be nice. It really depends on patience for this.

Adaptability stems from attitude, aptitude preaches capability. You're talking about players who express both attitude and aptitude towards the task in front of them.

'Laid back attitude' is a 'type' of attitude, not the definition, which was what I was aiming for.

The point that I was making is that aptitude does not reflect a person's attitude towards dealing with the things that go wrong, otherwise if they do, then they also have a good attitude towards things. I think that if players have both then you'll always want to have them on your team. However, if they're going to act derogatory about it then its not worth the time, irregardless of their drive and dedication that they have to the task at hand.

Sure, players with a lot of aptitude will learn how to fix their mistakes and do it right for the first couple of times, but once they find out what the routine is, it'll be "You st00pid n00b don't go that way. This group is full of idiots I'm leaving!!" A lot of the trouble comes because too many people are impatient and think that if even a little thing goes wrong, that it's a huge waste of time. Aptitude can't teach you how to learn from those things.

*shakes head* This thread is about which is more important. It doesn't say that you still can't value the other part of the two. Both aptitude and attitude could be held highly by many people, but if each is able to make the judgment about which one they would appreciate more, then that would be the goal of the thread. This thread doesn't ask how highly people favour one over the other, but just to make one of them distinctive.

Although I favour attitude more, given the two choices that you have provided, it would depend on the task at hand. If it was difficult I'd pick the anus but I would feel really reluctant in doing so, and I won't be having a good time. Otherwise it will be the useless one with the good attitude, and the mission would just be that more challenging, which is probably a good thing.

Good intentions doesn't always mean victory, and some people will never get better beyond "decent." While fine for casual play, when the chips are down and you need great support for a difficult area, the people with the best attitude do not mean certain victory.

Having a rotten personality generally doesn't lead to great success anyway, no matter how good you are, when you're teaming with others. In which case they will take heroes/henches and do it themselves anyway. However one can argue that driven people will often "turn off" others with their determination for improvement.


It's never easy to chose one or the other, but I'll side towards attitude.

I've played since the beginning of the game - back then we were all, of course, new.

After all that time I've discovered that some of the people that seemed skilled but an enormous jerk when I first played with them have turned into the best and most loyal game friends.

(I'm sure not saying that all jerks are talented, nor am I saying that talented jerks always change as you get to know them. Plenty of stubborn and arrogant players have no reason to be. But some really talented people have attitude and it's well-earned).

Exceptional skills and intelligence, in the game or in life, often come with attitude. And once you get past that attitude they can be the most interesting people once you get to know them.

All of GW is online play; therefore, if they shut the server down they're falsely advertising the game. I see what you're saying, but if they would shut down their server right now, I would sue them within 28 days.

I'd win btw.

P.S. Learn to turn off team chat guys .

attitude hands down

That's one of the main reasons I never pvp - arrogant know-it-alls who complain at the drop of a hat. I can't stand to be around them or playing with them so I don't.

Let me elaborate my point a little more, I hope that you may see what I am trying to explain. The "aptitude" players have a good reason to do what they do.
Take a real world example, there is a old mantra: Don't fix it if it ain't broken. Also in the business world we have "stick with what works", why? Because when everything else could fail, you can always fall back to this. In a highly dynamic and highly efficient environment (you can just use a freshly invited pug that holds high uncertainty and great risk vs profit margin in a high level elite area like DoA City quest hard mode, well not exactly, but think harder), it is logical to stick with what works - the most fundamental , established model that requires the least overhead cost, easiest to execute and get the job done. Would you consider going to UW with a team of mesmers? Variety and flexibility has a limit, that limit is governed by this business rule.

I was in a Stygian veil once with my mesmer, back then the "model" team build does not have mesmer in the team before, so I get kicked instantly upon invite, but I PMed the leader a fevered dream/phatom pain build and explained what I do, I got an invite and we did very well, faster than ever did before. The point I am trying to make is that, if you can help the aptitude players understand that you are capable, experienced and knows what you are doing, which in term minimize the risk vs profit margin and contribute to the success of the team, they would love to have you on board, even if you make mistakes once and a while. I mean why wouldn't they?

I understand sometimes they are a little paranoid, but it is vital when in a high level elite area pve, and 1 single mistake will cost the team to roll back hours of effort. Sometimes that high standard of execution turns many casual players off, but without that precise sense of perfection, one increase the risk of failure and potentially waste hours of effort for each of the team members, which adds up to be pretty significant. I know that it might not be necessary to transfer that high end pve professionalism to lower level pve settings, but this is where they come from.

Then again in GW, a good player knows the builds, a great player knows the philosophy behind the builds, the best player knows the philosophy.

ill prefere noobs who are willing to learn

I'd take Aptitude. Nice people are fun to play with, but I don't play GW to compensate for other people.

I preffer good attitude, as long as they are not leeching for a game ride. In two years the only time I ever thought of changing my guild name was for the concept of "Friends List" - as nearly all the people I play with have their own guild and do things their own way. We exchange ideas with each other, help each other in missions and quests, and help others that are not just being jerks.

hahah just took my monk puggen.... quest to get koss back... lvl 15 necro/war wanted to tank everything.... after a few deaths 40ish dp, he knew he wasnt gonna last... he had the right attitude... lvl 17 derv who thought he was god and died a bit less.... wrong attitude.... rather take that necro anywhere then the derv.... its all about attitude....

rather carry a cool person, then argue with any toon

Attitude.

Games Without Frontiers. (12 characters are required.)

H/H because then I get relatively skillful teammates running good builds (well the heroes at least, lol, can't say the same for the henchmen, indeed I bet the people who designed the hench builds were the same people who handle game 'balance') and following my instructions as best they can.

Attitude, definitely. Most of the great players I currently play with started out as friendly but utterly clueless newbies that I ran through missions and helped out early on. The good ones I continued to help, the bad apples I ignored. You'd be surprised how quickly people pick up on the game when they realize how much fun it can be when you actually know what you're doing.

If I happen to end up stuck with the opposite, I may tolerate the jackass who happens to be a good player for the remainder of the mission; but after we're done I will more often than not call him on his crap, kick him, put him on ignore, and move on.


BWAHahahahahaha!

Remove the requirement to have to play with morons in GW and this problem would be fixed quick.

No one would pug ever again.

Attitude. I'd rather have a positive crappy player who is willing to learn on my team than an egocentric know-it-all.

Doubtful.

You've been here since Feb 2006. You've acquired your money's worth. I can't see any reasonable legal claim you could make against them.

You'd need someone who just bought the game, from a copy they could show was sent out by Anet fairly recently, and they would likely judge the matter based on the time it takes the average player of a video game to get reasonable enjoyment out of it. Such a person, even if they won, might not get any notable damages - perhaps the cost of the game minus some portion. And then in most jurisdictions they'd still have to pay legal fees...

That logic would work in the USA, and in the UK, and probably under most legal systems as well.

^ 1,000% correct. The time and cost of a lawsuit would ridiculously exceed any potential reward.

apparently, I'm for the mix:

If there is someone who have not so great skills or unexperienced with the game, I would try to help him or her out to make GW easier for him or her.

But attitude is very important, people are total arrogant morons or those who are too picky (especially Heroes Ascent), I would mostly avoid these people.

The US as well as the rest of the English speaking world are under what is Known as common law system the rest are under neapoleon(sp)civil code.It cost where I live in Provincial court $30.000 to book a court room for a civil suite.A little OT.

I'd pick attitude - just because a good player with lots of aptitude, but a really bad attitude, will cause all the other players in a group to perform badly. People get offended, either petulant or angry, embarrassed, confused, stop wanting to help one another or perform as a team, and that leads to fast failure.

Whereas the reverse - someone who has a great attitude but poor ability - can get the rest of the team to rally around him, unite as a team, or perform their best.

To me it's not the one person with either aptitude or attitude, it's the other seven whose behavior will depend in part on what the first person does.

attitude for me too
noobs today are ignorance , arrogant and always think they're good
which often spoiled the whole soup

Aptitude doesn't PuG

/endthread

A player with aptitude is not a noob or ignorant. They don't think they're good, they are good. That's what the word means.

I've always found the idea of getting in this situation from someone over the internet to be odd. I guess it depends what you consider good 'attitude'. I prefer playing with someone who will tell me if I'm doing something wrong and make sure I know it, rather than continue to let me suck.