What is a bad player?

This is pretty much what I was going to say.

A bad player is someone who performs poorly in their given role. Most bad players are either:
-New to the game and will become good players given some time to learn
-New to the profession / role and will become good players given some time to learn
-Unsuited to the profession / role, and will not become good players. This is fine, as long as the player recognizes it.
-Anyone who is unable / unwilling to learn the mechanics of their profession / role

Yes, new players are bad (generally). There's nothing wrong with that though. It takes some time and experience to become good with the system, time and practice that most of us had to put in to become good players. That's why most of the 'bad player' complaints come from PvP (RA/AB) - half the people there are playing professions and roles they've never touched before.

On a final note, good person does not necessarily mean good player, nor does bad person mean bad player. I have many friends who, while they are amazing people, are absolutely terrible at the game - and I've met stellar players who I couldn't bear to be around for more than 15 minutes.

Bad player imo is someone who isnt open minded and very arrogant when it comes to their build, equip etc. The amount of arguments I have been in with mending/heal breeze wammo's......

To me, a bad player means you won't listen to instructions, won't learn from mistakes and doesn't work well in a team (both with the players and against the foes).

I was monking for a forge run a few days back, and I had 2 guildies with me. We had 2 rangers (barrager, BHA), 2 monks (HBoon, I was WoH), a warrior, SS necro, 2 nukers (SH and SF). The ranger kept aggroing and pulling, which soon drove my guildies nuts because he'd often go before everyone and would pull back to us... sometimes over-aggroing in the process. The warrior, in lead, pings a mob, goes to get it - without warning, barrager goes to get another mob with abyssals. Rastigan got triggered but we managed to clear before something happened. We tell him to slow down, but nope.

So he continues. He keeps aggroing faster than the group would move, and before doing Army of Darkness, we've had about enough. One ele's running double sup and no vigor (I think everyone went "WTF..."), thus aggro switches to the leeroying ranger from the poor ele, which gets d/p'ed fairly fast.

The Hboon monk leaves RIGHT after Army, without saying anything, given the ranger had aggroed everything in the damned area (including Menzies, the mob around him and the second Dragon Lich with its small mob). But we continue, thinking the ranger was finally gonna stop.

We move to forge only to notice the barrager's out of everyone's range. He's looting. Exhausted, I start telling him to come back to us, that he's part of the team therefore should kill with us, and I get insulted back. "stop being a jew" "let me loot, i make my money" "**** U JEW I LOOT IF I WANT". I just about lost it there...

Barrager comes back nearly half into the forge (about time). He kills stuff with us, aggroing too fast still, but I was able to keep the team alive as the only monk. Once we're done clearing, the barrager goes looting AGAIN. The double-sup ele takes the next quest (Defend) and the barrager gets trapped behind abyssals (that's where I go "lmao"). He tells us to help him get through that he'll help after, yada yada, but everyone has had enough, so no one goes to help. He rushes through the abyssals and dies 2ft away from the stairs. The WHOLE team starts to laugh.

He spent 5 minutes pinging "I'm dead!" and "res me! res me! ill help!!!". I start to respond to his pleas with "yeah well you were being greedy earlier, refusing to help people but you want help NOW? hah, I'm not resing you".

When Defend got done, he raged on the spot. Made my day.

And we go on. Now we're lacking a monk and barrager. But we think we'll do it anyways. First couple mobs on our way to spider cave goes fine... until the warrior, distracted, goes to aggro another mob while one's coming our way. The double-sup ele dies (duh) and so does half of our team - remains me and the SS necro. Duoble-sup ele goes "I'm not getting anything so I'm gonna go, bye"... and leaves.

So we have, in the same team: a monk who left for no reason - an overaggroing greedy ranger who can't work in a team - an ele who has no idea of health mechanics with a childish "OMFG IM NOT GETTING DROPS THIS SUCKS IM OUT" mentality...

Now THESE are bad players, IMHO.

In my opinion, "bad player" can be defined 2 different ways.

1. Someone who is bad for the community and makes others not want to play the game.

2. Someone who has no talent for the game and can't improve.

The first category includes all the scammers and 14 year old windbags that you see in town. I really don't care how good you are at the game. If you spend most of your time in town harassing/scamming other players then you are a bad player.

The second category are those folks that just cannot seem to learn the mechanics of gameplay for whatever reason. They may be just too young to master the game or have some type of physical handicap that prevents them from playing well or it could just be an egotrip. Their bar is awesome against the level 5-6 Charr in Ruins of Surmia and Level 10 skeletons in Gates of Kryta so it should work fine in HA too. When it doesn't, it's obviously because the team monk sucks and the other team are using hacks!!!!

Any player that is unwilling to listen to advice and admit that he can improve is a bad player. The level 18 Necro in Thirsty River that is asking guildies to help him fix his Flare-Firestorm-Meteor-Vamp Gaze bar is not necessarily a bad player. If he's willing to listen to advice and change his playing style, he'll improve as he learns the game.

Bad player? Type in Nameless Beauty and read some stuff they post.


-.-

Oooh, I don't know about that. I think that monk had plenty of good reasons to leave. He was the smart one.

If you have a valid reason of leaving, I won't mind it (stuff happens). However, I don't appreciate of party members when they leave without saying anything, and I've gotten very sour about such behavior. You're in a team, either stick with it or explain why you have to leave... or want to (I can understand crashes and such... as I was saying, stuff happens). Maybe if he/she had said "this group sucks, you have 2 awful players here who aren't doing anything well" I'd have understood. But I also was running with guildies and I won't rage until we decide to do so, together.

A bad player is a player who cannot be taught to play better. Not to spawn another PvE/PvP debate, but most bad players in my definition tend to limit themselves to PvE or certain unchallenging PvP forms.

A couple of additional questions. Would you rather play with an nice, friendly bad player or an arrogant good player? What if a player really tries to be good but still isn't should they be shunned in game?

I agree with others from earlier in this thread. A bad player is someone who is obnoxious and doesn't bother to adapt.


Counterexample to Esan
A bad player? An example from a real story in RoF missions.

One who runs off litterally 4 compass maps away from the party and dies, and only then releases "hey where the hell are you guys?" Our answer, "we were all doing the bonus and telling you to stop running away." We eventually get to him, res him, and he procedes to spam his tiger, claim to be in a top 100 guild, and call us all noobs because we didn't run off and aggro 3 mobs by ourselfs.


Edit @Risky: The nice, friendly bad player in the long term. I'd more likely want to be friends with and have him in my guild. Because, if he really is trying, he will get better.

What about Last of Master or Tommy?




___________________________
[Insert User-made Signature Here]

I'd play with the bad but friendly player. I'm a social guy, I can't help it. I've had awesome team experiences despite some failures with bad, yet nice players - they take advice and try their best, in general. Good atmosphere in groups usually equals a very good chance of completing your area, and less... sour failures if they happen. "Oh well, we tried our best with what we have".

With arrogant players, my experiences have been so-so. Too many arrogant, firey personalities where everyone doesn't communicate and such either ends in failure ("OMFG I was gonna aggro that group, why'd ya aggro that one?!??!!" "CUZ I AGGRO THIS ONE FIRST NOOB!") or victory, since they know what they're doing.

- Yes, there's no fat or poor people in the world. Everyone is equal. Is lying your "style"?

Well, actually, the monk left before the Ranger started spazzing out/acting like a dumbass, I believe.

What's a bad player? The skills don't matter. Being new to the game doesn't make you bad. Having played for a year or so but not knowing all the mechanics of the game doesn't make you bad. I mean, whatever floats your boat, just continue having fun the way you want.

A bad player is one who knows what he/she's doing is wrong, detrimental, or stupid, and refuses to change. Like in the Kaanai Canyon map, the Kurzicks abusing the glitch said "there are no glitches in GW" "you cant cheat on GW" "it's not our fault the glitch is here" "lol stfu ur gettin pwned" and basically denied that they were exploiting a glitch to win. That is a bad player.

There's also the people who scam. Sure, some of it is the scammed's fault, whether they're just naive or stupid, but what about the people who leave right after they get the running service, or leechers? Those are bad players. They can't pull their load, so they leech. They're too spiteful to pay someone for his/her effort, so they rip the runner off.

By the way, I hate to say it but rude/immature people aren't bad players. They're bad people.

In general, I'd rather play with a nice player who gives an honest effort. It's more satisfying when you accomplish things with someone you get along with.

I'd play with him.

I'd rather win.

It's my opinion - and I try to practice this as often as possible - that people should only be 'shunned in game' for being rude, obnoxious, overbearing, arrogant and disrespectful. Given the choice, I'll play with people I like, regardless of their skill at the game. It is, after all, a game - we play to have fun, and I have a lot more fun playing with people who aren't arrogant pricks. Even wiping, losing matches, and general phail is fun when you do it with people you like. The great thing about Guild Wars, though, is that it's usually possible to succeed even with a bad player or too. Less so in PvP, but even there you'll occasionally draw teams that have more bad players than you do and get a win out of the deal.

In short, yes, I'll group with a "good person/bad player" before a "bad person/good player" any time.

Masochist.

I don't want to win to watch an arrogant skilled player say "LOL WE PRAWNED U N00000000BZ" - I'd rather lose and get a round of "gg" all around. Besides, it's easier to teach a good-natured newbie about the game, than it is to teach an arrogant skilled player how to be polite.

A polite newbie will probably end up on my friends list, and perhaps even in my guild. An arrogant skilled player will probably wind up on my ignore list, no matter how good he is at GW.

I know it can be frustrating teaching someone who doesn't understand GW how to play, but if he's patient and willing to learn, I don't have a problem. However, it is next to impossible to teach some punk online how to act like a civilized person.

theres a few of them that have posted in this thread...

but moriz basically hit the nail on the head.

Good and bad are both relative terms. No clear definition of either in GW.

People who RA or AB or "high-end" PvE are bad players.

Sup?

Bad players can easily be recognised.

1) They make the same mistakes over and over and will not learn from them.
2) Whenever something goes wrong they will blame other players and the game incessantly

A clear example of both is this:

A wammo or sin charges into combat blindly, clear out of the aggro range of the monks and dies because he cannot be healed consequently. Then he starts yelling at the monks for not healing him.
Next encounter he charges in again away from the monks....

I think we've found one

Arrogant Players who think they are better than everyone and dont have to listen

Stupied pugs thats why HH is better

This applies for both sides of the game. Major QFT.

Bad players are players who fail at gaming. Gaming is all about having fun, if you can have fun and are less skilled then you are a good player. If you cant have fun and are more skilled then otherse and whine and complain about "bad players" then youre a bad player. Unless you have fun complaining then I guess youre good too. A bad player is someone who cant have fun. Because when it comes down to it, thats all that matters. It like life, if youre not happy, doesnt matter how rich you are , youre a failure. If you are happy, youre a success. Simple.

One who should listen but doesn't

People who cheat to boost their e-peen.

QFT, for that is exactly how I feel.

The problem here isn't one of subjectivity, it's that the question was posed too broadly. For instance, in competitive activities there are established, objective metrics by which to measure players - win/loss ratios, performance statistics (e.g., batting averages), etc. The fact that this data typically isn't compiled for all players doesn't mean there's no objective way to measure 'good' and 'bad'.

The contention that there are no 'bad players' is plainly false. About the only activities that have no 'good' or 'bad' participants are those that do not depend at all on the abilities of said participant (e.g., lottery).

It's easy to come up w/ characteristics of a good or bad player, but it is much harder to define them outright. Generally, a bad player is someone that can't or won't use teamwork and refuses to learn from their experiences. Flat-out rejecting any advice given is also a good indicator...

It all depends on what you value.

For me:
Bad players =
1. People with bad attitudes.
2. People who like to cause other people pain and grief.
3. People who try and take advantage of you.
4. People who are too lazy to do for themselves and want others to do for them.

Good players =
1. Friendly, helpful, considerate, generous.
2. Like a challenge, like to learn, like to hang out with people.
3. Have a good sense of humor, don't take things too dang serious.
4. Don't think they are better than everyone else.

lol this is major flame bait b thread but .....

a bad player doesnt ever learn what doesnt work

There are no bad players, there are no good players. There is only me and I'm amazing.

Same as in real life: anyone who is unable to play well with others (they are rude, inconsiderate, unwilling to compromise or adapt to others). They might be really skilled etc, but it doesnt matter. If you cant play well with others in a group setting, I would define that as a bad player. The question, and my answer, of course does not apply to someone who only plays with AI.

Good player are those that play and let others play.

Bad players are those that do not play and do not let others play.

Easy, eh?

Bad player= someone who does not learn to improve what they are weak at.

Anyone unwilling to be flexable and adapt, if a player is a bad player due to lack of expriance, this is often beacuse they refused to try different things to gain that expiriance

http://i26.tinypic.com/34y7k1h.jpg

Bad players can be everyone.

They are necessary for some posters here that they have at least something in their life to be proud of, even if they are not good players:

I am a good player, yay!