Jump to content


Why do bad players refuse to listen to the advice of good players?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
121 replies to this topic

Zombie_Snuggles #61 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 12:35

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 23058 battles
  • 227
  • Member since:
    12-23-2015

View PostSparkyGT, on Nov 08 2018 - 23:27, said:

 

he may have had a bad winrate with his previous fleshlight.

 

I laughed so hard at this! +1

DEADTIME #62 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 13:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10197 battles
  • 330
  • [CS7AO] CS7AO
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Wait wait wait....so a barbarian named flesh light with 12 games wants other players to stop and follow his orders.....nope nope nope not gonna bite I'll move on.

awildseaking #63 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 14:22

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10913 battles
  • 760
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

View PostSynfulSun, on Nov 08 2018 - 19:22, said:

Bad players overestimate their skill, while actual good players often underestimate themselves.

 

In other words, bad players feel like they no longer need to learn anything else about the game while good players are always hungry for knowledge and lust for a chance at improving their skills.

 

Dunning kruger is grossly misinterpreted and ironically proves itself by the people who invoke it. Correlations indicate relationships, not the direction of the relationship. It's sort of like speed and velocity. In this case, the problem is that it isn't just incompetent people who do this; up until roughly the 80th percentile, ALL PEOPLE OVERESTIMATE. The degree of overestimation is similar at most levels of competency until you enter the realm of expertise, where people who think they're good at something actually are. "Underestimation" is a blatant misrepresentation because they don't actually understate their abilities relative to others. They assess themselves as better than everyone else and they are.

 

In reality, Dunning kruger is just a rhetorical strategy because it's easier to dismiss people if you can pass them off as unintelligent, ie a strawman. It doesn't even hold up to basic scrutiny. Why would people be overconfident simply because they're less competent? Knowing more doesn't suggest that you would have better comprehension of your limitations, nor would it make you a more introspective person that can accurate evaluate oneself. If anything, people who aren't competent probably understand it best because they see it in reality every day.


Edited by awildseaking, Nov 09 2018 - 15:06.


Blackstone #64 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 14:28

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 16675 battles
  • 1,522
  • [-IGC-] -IGC-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

View PostSynfulSun, on Nov 08 2018 - 19:22, said:

Bad players overestimate their skill, while actual good players often underestimate themselves.

 

In other words, bad players feel like they no longer need to learn anything else about the game while good players are always hungry for knowledge and lust for a chance at improving their skills.

 

Nailed it.

 

I'm barely above 51% and I KNOW I don't know everything. I still want to learn to be better. Will I ever be purple? Shoot, I practically had a party when I got GREEN, which is "above average" on the WIN8 scale.

 

I respect most of the purple players. The ones who are willing to give advice and creative criticism. They talk the talk and walk the walk. But if he's being a schmuck...well you're not helping. That really goes for anybody. Most people who rage in chat are just frustrated and you gotta let it go. There's always another match.

 

From what I learned when it comes to a match you've lost:

1. What went wrong?

2. What, if anything, could I have done to have changed the outcome?

 

Sometimes it nothing you did, others...well...sometimes you just sh*t the bed. Learn from your mistakes and move on. That's all you can do.



Guido1212 #65 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 14:36

    Community Contributor

  • Players
  • 77083 battles
  • 8,028
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View Postkgomoll, on Nov 08 2018 - 22:51, said:

You have set the playing field even, Its not. 3 types of players 1. I really don't care 2. I want to get gud 3.One tank to rule them all, now mix that with RNG and through in some MM and BAM! you have World of Spanks, Not to mention that its not an E sports game some its pointless. Just have fun its a game like Mario Cart or Dig Dug.  I used to be really into the game, but then I got a very good job, So the game is more relaxation then anything. Sometimes i like driving off cliffs or camping with my type 5 so what, yes people send hate mail, but hey at the end of the day the only one who matters is that name signed on the bottom of your paycheck, unless you still live with you parents then you wouldn't really know about that.

 

One thing that always makes me laugh about this position is that it insists we all be realistic and accept the situation but it doesn’t want to do the same for others.

 

I’m perfectly happy to accept that some don’t care how they play at times.  But when you do that you have to accept that some do care and you might get some negative feedback.  That road goes both ways.



Guido1212 #66 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 14:41

    Community Contributor

  • Players
  • 77083 battles
  • 8,028
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Nov 09 2018 - 00:37, said:

 

But even a reroll can know what they are talking about. If somebody is getting good stats and they have 1000 battles or more, its a good bet they have the required knowledge base. Sometimes a player with a really high battle count but average stats will have advice that is just as good, but it doesn't happen as often. I really like your idea of a Captain system. That is kind of how I use XVM currently, but its not in the vanilla client yet. As for there not being places a class of tank has to go on the map, there is no absolute rule, but in many cases it is highly recommended they go to a certain spot to be most effective. Unless you really know what you are doing, its rarely advisable to ignore the spot your team expects you to go (based on class and role).

I’m curious why we might think that XVM is flawed and can’t be trusted but somehow WG is going to come up with a great ranking system to make captains?



UnturnedLeaf #67 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 18:31

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 24354 battles
  • 53
  • [DG-HD] DG-HD
  • Member since:
    03-05-2017

View PostThunder_Storm_713, on Nov 09 2018 - 03:46, said:

 

 ​That explains a lot about you.

 

i think that was what he was trying to communicate. what are YOU trying to communicate? you sound a tad snarky

cloudwalkr #68 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 20:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 54542 battles
  • 4,984
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

View PostGuido1212, on Nov 09 2018 - 14:41, said:

I’m curious why we might think that XVM is flawed and can’t be trusted but somehow WG is going to come up with a great ranking system to make captains?

 

and who says those "captains" are ok with being designated a captain.  Then what about the group that will never be captain but want to be?

 

captain system wouldn't work in my opinion.



Devildog8 #69 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 20:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 10361 battles
  • 6,289
  • [RSHRK] RSHRK
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

A great man shows his greatness by the way he treats little men.

Thomas Carlyle



scHnuuudle_bop #70 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 21:26

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18188 battles
  • 3,014
  • [MUG-T] MUG-T
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016

View Postcloudwalkr, on Nov 09 2018 - 20:16, said:

 

and who says those "captains" are ok with being designated a captain.  Then what about the group that will never be captain but want to be?

 

captain system wouldn't work in my opinion.

 

I still think having someone on the players list be given some form of recognition would be a good thing.

You are a skilled player, would it not be a compliment? If you were in a battle, and really wanted to give some advice,  it seems  better to have some form of ID which adds some legitimacy.

 

How would it be a bad thing? No one would have to listen,, pay attention, or even look to see who is a captain . 

Players already insist on having their stats displayed, why not get some use from it.

 

Players wanting to be captain, well, that is sort of circular. Pay attention to the captains wisdom, and maybe you will be captain soon.

Have some sort of incentive, say a few personal reserves or consumables for being a captain, maybe even a bit more XP. 



Omega_Weapon #71 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 22:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 48500 battles
  • 2,064
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostGuido1212, on Nov 09 2018 - 08:41, said:

I’m curious why we might think that XVM is flawed and can’t be trusted but somehow WG is going to come up with a great ranking system to make captains?

 

I don't think XVM is really flawed. Just the way some people use (miss-use it). I use it to see efficiency score, win rate, and total number of battles. Those 3 tell me everything I want to know about a player. I'd hope for Wargaming to base a captain system on a combination of those 3 stats.

oSASUNo #72 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 22:45

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 1581 battles
  • 68
  • [BHIV] BHIV
  • Member since:
    09-18-2018

what is the definition good players bad players?

 

i saw many players who has better win rate do f stupid thing in battle.

 

that's why i rather play high tier 9~10 so i dont need to worry about idiots who just jump in dead line or dont care about flankers

 

for me if you are not green and above rest are same giggles



_Tsavo_ #73 Posted Nov 09 2018 - 23:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 42337 battles
  • 17,418
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostTankKing187, on Nov 09 2018 - 16:45, said:

what is the definition good players bad players?

 

i saw many players who has better win rate do f stupid thing in battle.

 

that's why i rather play high tier 9~10 so i dont need to worry about idiots who just jump in dead line or dont care about flankers

 

for me if you are not green and above rest are same giggles

 

Consistency.  Great battles and extraordinary results can be had by anyone, at any time.  The highlight reel battle.  But that's just one battle. 

 

Good players consistently punch above their weight and it is evidenced in the stats that are tracked.   How often one has good and bad matches is what separates them.



Pipinghot #74 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 20:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,858
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View Postawildseaking, on Nov 09 2018 - 08:22, said:

View PostSynfulSun, on Nov 08 2018 - 19:22, said:

Bad players overestimate their skill, while actual good players often underestimate themselves.

 

In other words, bad players feel like they no longer need to learn anything else about the game while good players are always hungry for knowledge and lust for a chance at improving their skills.

 

Dunning kruger is grossly misinterpreted and ironically proves itself by the people who invoke it. Correlations indicate relationships, not the direction of the relationship. It's sort of like speed and velocity. In this case, the problem is that it isn't just incompetent people who do this; up until roughly the 80th percentile, ALL PEOPLE OVERESTIMATE. The degree of overestimation is similar at most levels of competency until you enter the realm of expertise, where people who think they're good at something actually are. "Underestimation" is a blatant misrepresentation because they don't actually understate their abilities relative to others. They assess themselves as better than everyone else and they are.

 

In reality, Dunning kruger is just a rhetorical strategy because it's easier to dismiss people if you can pass them off as unintelligent, ie a strawman. It doesn't even hold up to basic scrutiny. Why would people be overconfident simply because they're less competent? Knowing more doesn't suggest that you would have better comprehension of your limitations, nor would it make you a more introspective person that can accurate evaluate oneself. If anything, people who aren't competent probably understand it best because they see it in reality every day.

And speaking of straw man arguments, SynfulSun didn't say anything about Dunning-Kruger, but that didn't stop you from writing two paragraphs about it. It's true true that SynfulSun's argument is wrong ( because many "actual good" players also overestimate themselves), but he didn't make any reference to Dunning-Kruger at all, so there was no reason for you to start arguing about the use of Dunning-Kruger in arguments and debates.

 

All you had to say was something like, "That's not true, there are many good players who also overestimate themselves." That would have been a much more on point response.


Edited by Pipinghot, Nov 10 2018 - 22:32.


Pipinghot #75 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 20:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 8,858
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostscHnuuudle_bop, on Nov 09 2018 - 15:26, said:

View Postcloudwalkr, on Nov 09 2018 - 20:16, said:

and who says those "captains" are ok with being designated a captain.  Then what about the group that will never be captain but want to be?

 

captain system wouldn't work in my opinion.

I still think having someone on the players list be given some form of recognition would be a good thing.

You are a skilled player, would it not be a compliment? If you were in a battle, and really wanted to give some advice,  it seems  better to have some form of ID which adds some legitimacy.

 

How would it be a bad thing? No one would have to listen,, pay attention, or even look to see who is a captain . 

Players already insist on having their stats displayed, why not get some use from it.

WoT already has more than enough self-appointed know-it-alls trying to tell everyone else on their team how to play and SCREAMING AT THEM IN ALL CAPS IF THEY DON"T LISTEN, not to mention calling people a bunch of choice names. We don't need anything added to the game that reinforces bad behavior. The people who would be good team captains are already good team captains, they give as much good advice as they can during the battle and if they are good at communicating then people listen to them and their teams win more often. On the other hand, the people who would be bad team captains are already trying, and failing, to tell their teams what to do, and the last thing we need is for the game to highlight their names and give them permission to be even more obnoxious.

 

Random battles are exactly that, Random. They are not true-team battles, and for the game to falsely appoint people as leaders based on their stats would not benefit anyone in the game, all it would do is create more yelling and arguing by people who shouldn't be trying to lead in the first place.



cloudwalkr #76 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 21:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 54542 battles
  • 4,984
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

View PostscHnuuudle_bop, on Nov 09 2018 - 21:26, said:

 

I still think having someone on the players list be given some form of recognition would be a good thing.

You are a skilled player, would it not be a compliment? If you were in a battle, and really wanted to give some advice,  it seems  better to have some form of ID which adds some legitimacy.

 

How would it be a bad thing? No one would have to listen,, pay attention, or even look to see who is a captain . 

Players already insist on having their stats displayed, why not get some use from it.

 

Players wanting to be captain, well, that is sort of circular. Pay attention to the captains wisdom, and maybe you will be captain soon.

Have some sort of incentive, say a few personal reserves or consumables for being a captain, maybe even a bit more XP. 

 

It honestly doesn't matter if I would find it complementary.  That system to me is like joining a Team battle and the guy saying "ok, you're calling this one" whether you want to or not.  A lot of high skilled players hate calling and or giving directions and just want to drive around and shoot stuff like anyone else.  I'm sure there are people out there that would love it as well, so a compromise could be to offer them the captain slot and if they don't want it they don't have to take it. 

 

It could be a bad thing in a couple different ways.  

1 - Like I stated, what if players don't want to be captain and have no way out of it

2 - People already rage on others for the littlest bit of direction, I doubt they'd listen to a captain and would probably just be more trouble than worth it in a system like that.

3 - Players DON'T already insist on stats showing.  I hate it and would love it if they were covered for the match.  Please stop assuming that everyone wants stats shown and to be public in a match.  That leads me to - Would this captain badge be shown to enemies?  All other badges do, so why wouldn't they.  It will just be another thing highlighting the "good" player.  No thank you.

4 - Again, nothing is or would ever guarantee that a "captain" has any clue on how to direct others. 

 

I just would not be in favor of a captain system.  The team chat works well enough already if you know what to look for.  The players smart enough to listen to a captain would be smart enough to figure out if someone is worth listening to in my opinion.

 

for example: which would you listen to

 

JWIEAOJVHPEA OVIJAOENA  MOVE YOUR TANKS YOAUEREA FAOIVHJAEUFE  JOGFQIWUERawufadgm  SHOOT THEM YOU FOAIUEAIOFJEAFOUEJ

                                                                                                                     or

"Hey guys, move up some to get them in draw." "M103 can you pls move up" "I'll cover you X and flank here if you push"

 

It's really not hard to figure out who might have a clue and who is just map pinging and yelling.  

 

Edit:  I forgot another example of why it would be a negative thing overall - The players that will never be captain.  You could argue that it could be used as a motivational tool to drive others to improve to earn that captain seat...but it just wouldn't work like that for the masses in my opinion.  You'd have people get mad because "the game doesn't want them to be a captain" and we'd see an entire new wave of "rigged" style posts every day.


Edited by cloudwalkr, Nov 10 2018 - 21:16.


Omega_Weapon #77 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 22:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 48500 battles
  • 2,064
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View Postcloudwalkr, on Nov 10 2018 - 15:12, said:

Edit:  I forgot another example of why it would be a negative thing overall - The players that will never be captain.  You could argue that it could be used as a motivational tool to drive others to improve to earn that captain seat...but it just wouldn't work like that for the masses in my opinion.  You'd have people get mad because "the game doesn't want them to be a captain" and we'd see an entire new wave of "rigged" style posts every day.

 

A promotion to captain is usually earned in the military. They don't just hand them out to everyone in the name of "fairness". Why should that be different in the game?

Staz211 #78 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 22:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 26969 battles
  • 3,825
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Nov 10 2018 - 16:22, said:

 

A promotion to captain is usually earned in the military. They don't just hand them out to everyone in the name of "fairness". Why should that be different in the game?

 

A promotion to CPT in the military is "earned" by not committing a felony as a 1LT. 

 

If a 1LT doesn't make CPT, they have done something seriously wrong. 



Derpomagix #79 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 22:49

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2122 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    11-06-2017

For me, this is how it goes.

First Situation:

Unicum: "You fking piece of ****,  go ply cnady crush, you ********* scuk"

Me: "Bugger off!"

Me: "...and learn to spell"

 

Second Situation:

Unicum: "That was slightly unwise to go around the corner to face enemy heavies when you have no hitpoints left"

Me: "Yeah, I was stupid, sorry. I'll be a little wiser next time"

 

See the difference?



cloudwalkr #80 Posted Nov 10 2018 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 54542 battles
  • 4,984
  • Member since:
    04-05-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Nov 10 2018 - 22:22, said:

 

A promotion to captain is usually earned in the military. They don't just hand them out to everyone in the name of "fairness". Why should that be different in the game?

 

because this isn't real life for starters.  lol stop even trying to compare what should happen in real life to this pixel tank game.  People play games to have fun, if you tell a large group that there is an entire other section of game that they can't play for whatever reason isn't a good game design.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users