View Poll Results: Which Raider?

Voters
164. You may not vote on this poll
  • lesser skilled more active

    74 45.12%
  • more skilled lesser active

    90 54.88%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    This is true to a certain extent, but the starting point for people is so very different that "talent" almost always comes out ahead.
    Malcolm Gladwell came up with this concept that 10 000 hours of deliberate practice at something is needed to make someone into an expert. Once one has that level of experience, initial talent counts for very little.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    I have had raiders who are spending hours and hours a day trying to improve, never even becoming average, and raiders who simply login for a raid (and that I'm frustrated at for not capping their valor) never screwing up and crushing the meters. Wow isn't so advanced that you need to spend more than an hour or two to perform relatively close to your class maximum potential, if you are bright enough.
    I would put your anecdotal evidence down to a simple case of both players being largely inexperienced. Real life =/= Karate Kid where someone can go for 6 weeks and train really hard and then suddenly become a world master. It takes years of working at it.

    I would bet that most, if not all, of the raiders in the top world guilds have spent thousands of hours working at their game to get to the level that they are, and I would be most surprised if they were all considered "wow-geniuses" at the start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    For menial work, yes, for more advanced matters, not really. That our society and school generally discourages/don't make use of talented people properly does make the difference smaller than it should be though.
    Talent is important yes. As a starting point. Obviously not everyone has an aptitude for some things, and the time it would take to give them the necessary skill is ridiculous.

    As an example, straight out of school, only about 5% of people might have the aptitude to start training as an engineer. That is not to say that the other 95% could not be trained, with sufficient time. It's generally simply not worth it.

    Best in the world people are exceptional. They have a special talent, and combined with enough effort are unbeatable. But there is very little stopping any ordinary person from becoming almost as good (better than 99% of other people), provided they have enough drive to put in the required effort for a sustained period of many years.

  2. #42
    Pandaren Monk Statix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Kreeshak View Post
    I guess to clarify from a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being perfect
    Raider A: 7 skill 9 activity
    Raider B: 9 skill 7 activity
    If it is that close together, I'd go with Raider A. If I need Raider B for a raid and he can't attend, I won't be able to raid at all. Prefer someone that has a bit less skill but attends all raids than someone who is uborawesome, but only attends a few.

    If it was A 3 skill and 9 activity vs B 9 skill and 3 activity, I'd go with B. There's a point where skill becomes more important than activity.\

    An important part of a less skilled player is that he can learn. A player that isn't active due to work or other crap can't be more active. So there's no progress there; it will always be the same. Of course, sometimes, less skilled players just suck and can't learn either. Have seen plenty of those. But that's another problem alltogether.
    Last edited by Statix; 2013-03-19 at 11:44 AM.
    Statix will suffice.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarac View Post
    You can improve them, but just like with anything it is very rare to get someone to be better at something in their own free time...it happens, but it's rare.
    Well let's be realistic. Unless it's a world first competing guild, there's really not that much skill involved in raiding. The vast majority of success in raiding has to do with simply knowing what to do and communicating well, not mechanical skill. This game doesn't require a whole lot of that in general. From what I've seen and read, raiding guilds in general struggle more with getting a full roster of interested players than with people not being good enough.

  4. #44
    Same thing as "Dead dps is no dps", if a player is really skilled but only there for 50% of the raids what's the point. Also depends on who's playing when the skilled player isn't there.
    People don't forgive, they forget. - Rust Cohle

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Faesroll View Post
    Same thing as "Dead dps is no dps", if a player is really skilled but only there for 50% of the raids what's the point. Also depends on who's playing when the skilled player isn't there.
    And loot efficiency, I mean he can be incredibly skilled but if they don't get gear they're still not going to pull their weight. If you do give them loot then you are going to be a lesser geared group for any raid night they're not around.

  6. #46
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by felhunter View Post
    there is nothing wrong with him prioritzing IRL obligations.
    The problem is that people aren't very good at distinguishing between obligations and arbitrary distractions. If you are a raider, even in a fairly casual guild, your WoW attendance should become one of your obligations.

    Quote Originally Posted by felhunter View Post
    however there is ofcourse a turning point that said raider B, is not able too attend then 50% or less of the raid nights. its becoming a pain for the raidleader, in such a scenario since its completely random in raider B will be there.
    In a 25 man group, if each person attends only 50% of the time, then you're probably going to need a raid roster of close to 60 people to have a reliable chance at filling your raid each week.

    In a 10 man group, this means having a roster of about 25 people.

    Being unavailable 10% of the time is probably acceptable for most 10 man groups. More than that and the group starts to become non-viable.

    If you think about a vital role, like tanking: If your group has 3 tanks, and each is available 90% of the time, then statistically, you'll have 2 tanks online about 98% of raids.

    However if each is only available 66% of the time, you'll only have 2 tanks 74% of raids.

    If each is only available 50% of the time, 50% of the time you won't have a raid. Which is ridiculous. Even with 4 tanks on your roster, a 50% attendance translates to only having 2 tanks for 68% of raids.

  7. #47
    It seems like people are really exaggerating how skill gaps work, if A and B are both qualified to be in your raid group then aren't they already meeting some basic level of raiding competence? Say you are in ToT and you have one player doing 100k consistent DPS and another player doing 130k consistent DPS, of how much value is that extra 30k dps? Do you say that the player doing the higher DPS is 30% better than the other player? Are all classes really within a few % of each other when it comes to numbers they will get, or are some classes just always going to blow others out of the water?
    Most people would rather die than think, and most people do. -Bertrand Russell
    There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. -Howard Zinn
    If trickle down economics is working, it's only because there is a damn leak somewhere! -The One Percent

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Venant View Post
    It seems like people are really exaggerating how skill gaps work, if A and B are both qualified to be in your raid group then aren't they already meeting some basic level of raiding competence? Say you are in ToT and you have one player doing 100k consistent DPS and another player doing 130k consistent DPS, of how much value is that extra 30k dps? Do you say that the player doing the higher DPS is 30% better than the other player? Are all classes really within a few % of each other when it comes to numbers they will get, or are some classes just always going to blow others out of the water?
    interesting question. To try to reply I would guess that one player might consistently top the dps meters while the other might struggle at last spots of the meters. couldn't we conclude - with relevance to their gear - that one player is better than the other?

    edit: also regarding the gear and the way you can get gear in terms of valor, crafts, pvp, boes etc (being easy) should gear even be an excuse?
    Quote Originally Posted by meathead View Post
    The problem is warriors are not easy to kill like we were in cata and people are mad at that
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostcrawler
    Brian may answer differently, but I would say mages are hard to counter for average players but easy for great players.

  9. #49
    Titan Wildtree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Iowa - Franconia
    Posts
    12,607
    It depends not only on activity, but also on identification and dedication to the guild.
    I tend to choose Player A... Why? Well, if Player A gets frustrated, and you lose him, then you are in deep shit. You'd miss out on raid days, and it will lead to a complete breakdown of the entire progression.
    So, where you would progress with player B safer and more guaranteed.. In the long run you likely get further with player A.
    Ideally, you want a team which you can count on every single time. Slow progress still trumps occasional progress. Or none at all, because player B can't attend once again. The perfect solution would be, if both players are equally dedicated to the guild as such... Then you can pull them into a conversation, and have them work out a trade spots deal together with you. As guild/raid leader your goal needs to be to keep them both happy.

  10. #50
    the biggest problem with this poll isn't the skill difference between the two. It's that we don't know if player B is willing to learn how to play better.

  11. #51
    Malcolm Gladwell came up with this concept that 10 000 hours of deliberate practice at something is needed to make someone into an expert. Once one has that level of experience, initial talent counts for very little.
    Some advanced tasks can't be performed by untalented people, no matter how much they practice. Most people can't reach the very top in a field, regardless of how hard they try and strive.

    I would put your anecdotal evidence down to a simple case of both players being largely inexperienced. Real life =/= Karate Kid where someone can go for 6 weeks and train really hard and then suddenly become a world master. It takes years of working at it.

    I would bet that most, if not all, of the raiders in the top world guilds have spent thousands of hours working at their game to get to the level that they are, and I would be most surprised if they were all considered "wow-geniuses" at the start.
    No, they probably weren't geniuses, but they were probably quite decent shortly after starting (learning to play wow at a "decent" level is quite frankly very simple). Since having a huge amount of time to spend is a requirement to be a raider in the top guilds it's obvious that they've had a huge amount of practice, but there are individuals who are just (or close to) as talented who don't spend that time (but they aren't in said top guilds, for obvious reasons). The difference in the amount of time someone who is exceptionally bright and someone who is average or stupid has to spend to learn/excel at something is worlds apart. It's not about the average person spending just twice as much time as the talented individual, it's way more, and in some cases it's impossible for the average person to find enough time in a days 24 hours to catch up.

    Talent is important yes. As a starting point. Obviously not everyone has an aptitude for some things, and the time it would take to give them the necessary skill is ridiculous.

    As an example, straight out of school, only about 5% of people might have the aptitude to start training as an engineer. That is not to say that the other 95% could not be trained, with sufficient time. It's generally simply not worth it.
    The engineering education (at least here) isn't intended to be just for the very talented, and even then there are people who simply would be unable to manage it, regardless of the time spent. I do believe that the majority of the people could be trained to manage it, but all? I doubt that. If we had an education aimed at the top 0,1%, could even half be trained to manage that? Very doubtful.

    Best in the world people are exceptional. They have a special talent, and combined with enough effort are unbeatable. But there is very little stopping any ordinary person from becoming almost as good (better than 99% of other people), provided they have enough drive to put in the required effort for a sustained period of many years.
    They can be better than 99% of the people, because said 99% don't put in much, if any, effort towards said goal. No matter how talented one is said person won't excel in a field without any practice at all but if he/shes chose to put in even a relatively small amount of effort an average person won't keep up, no matter how hard they try. I guess I agree with the general point of your post though.



    Raelbos post is excellent at pointing out how incredibly important attendance is, and why I put that as the most important thing, even after arguing how much of an impact talent has.
    Last edited by Cookie; 2013-03-19 at 12:51 PM.

  12. #52
    High Overlord DarkSavior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The Internet
    Posts
    195
    I would rather bring the most skilled players to progression over some who just happens to be there all the time. That said, I would expect the Type B raider to be able to make at least 66% of all raid nights to keep their spot and less and they start to fall too far behind in gear.
    Darksavior@Kel'thuzard | Indestructible 14/14H as of Feb. 05, 2014 | Recruiting all Healers!
    Pokemon X IGN: Amelia | FC: 4957-3089-4539 | SV: 2324 | Ice Safari: Snorunt, Sneasel, and Piloswine

  13. #53
    The Lightbringer judgementofantonidas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    East Coast USA
    Posts
    3,400
    with higher skilled players you can spend less time wiping making attendance a moot issue.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-19 at 11:35 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by seta-san View Post
    the biggest problem with this poll isn't the skill difference between the two. It's that we don't know if player B is willing to learn how to play better.
    ok. so half way through the expansion, or nearer the end you need to replace a player.

    will you take the skilled player or the unskilled but willing to learn player?


    Lawful good does not always mean Lawful nice

  14. #54
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,031
    I'll have more fun playing with more skilled players as we'll accomplish more.

    I'll have less fun playing with less skilled players because we'll accomplish far less.

    So simple.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    Malcolm Gladwell came up with this concept that 10 000 hours of deliberate practice at something is needed to make someone into an expert. Once one has that level of experience, initial talent counts for very little.
    So your theory is that anyone can do anything as long as they put in enough time and effort? Then why aren't there more professional athletes out there? If it's just as simple as practicing for 10,000 hours.

    To perform any task successfully you need to have at least a modicum of talent to begin with. And to tell you the truth, I've seen players spend from 10pm to 4am practicing their DPS on a target dummy and never once improving. If somebody is having a hard time grasping the concept of a DPS rotation, or how healers need to switch between their large heals and their small heals based on damage, etc etc, then they really can't improve.
    I would put your anecdotal evidence down to a simple case of both players being largely inexperienced. Real life =/= Karate Kid where someone can go for 6 weeks and train really hard and then suddenly become a world master. It takes years of working at it.

    I would bet that most, if not all, of the raiders in the top world guilds have spent thousands of hours working at their game to get to the level that they are, and I would be most surprised if they were all considered "wow-geniuses" at the start.
    I would highly doubt that. Some people have a strong natural grasp of mathematics and logical reasoning. That's all being a hardcore raider is, a ton of math and a large amount of logic to realize "Oh shoot, this boss is using X ability, let me use Y ability to counteract it!" without being told. For example, I've seen excellent DPSers who forget about the fact that they have utility abilities, such as a Lay on Hands or a Power Word: Shield as a shadow priest (do they still have that ability? idk). Hardcore raiders typically do spend a large amount of time in-game, but that's because it's required of them to maximize every second of their rotation and know exactly which talents to take at which point, and every finite detail that goes into a world first run. Most of the ones I've seen / watched don't spend 6 hours in-game practicing a DPS rotation or spam-running LFRs to get better at healing. In this situation you're looking at more of a correlation versus causation deal. Do they spend a lot of time in game because they're good, or are they good because they spend a lot of time in game? I'm guessing the former.

    Also many good players in World of Warcraft come from other video game genres where the skills translate well. I started playing WoW and never had a moment of "n00b"-ness that everyone else always talks about, and was quickly in a serious raiding guild within one month of my character hitting lv70 (this was early early TBC).


    Talent is important yes. As a starting point. Obviously not everyone has an aptitude for some things, and the time it would take to give them the necessary skill is ridiculous.

    As an example, straight out of school, only about 5% of people might have the aptitude to start training as an engineer. That is not to say that the other 95% could not be trained, with sufficient time. It's generally simply not worth it.
    And this is the point I've been getting at, that sometimes a player is just so good that it's silly to take the lesser skilled player over him, just because of attendance issues. If you know for a fact that Player B isn't going to stand in crap, isn't going to miss that crucial heal or tank swap, then you can be relatively sure of your success. Hell there are some decent raiding guilds out there that only raid 4 - 6 hours a week and make tremendous progress while other guilds raid 9 - 10 and still slack. The entire reason is that the slacking 9 - 10 hour guilds don't have players that are just good at the game.

    Also I see a really skilled player as one who can immediately recognize issues in a fight and avoid them, even if they've never done the fight before. I get so frustrated when a players' excuse to standing in fire is "Oh sorry, I'm new to this fight." Doesn't matter if you're new, if you were any good you would recognize that the fire is doing damage to you and that you should get out of it!

    Best in the world people are exceptional. They have a special talent, and combined with enough effort are unbeatable. But there is very little stopping any ordinary person from becoming almost as good (better than 99% of other people), provided they have enough drive to put in the required effort for a sustained period of many years.
    I don't entirely disagree with you that a poor player could become skilled with enough effort. But most people don't have the necessary capabilities to perform better. They lack focus, they don't have quick fingers, they don't have any drive, etc. My entire point basically is that I'd rather take someone who raids less hours per week that I know is good rather than take someone that can make it every hour, but I have to remind them not to stand in fire, or explain mechanics fifty times each week to them.

    EDIT: @ Raelbo, the point I'm getting from the poll is that the player who can't make it to every raid is just so exceptional that it actually costs you to not have them on your roster. If that player is so talented that they can shoot progress forward just by the mere fact of being there, then having someone who is not even equal to half their skill will not net you an increase in progression. I wouldn't start assuming that you take any skilled player no matter what their attendance availabilities are. Attendance is very important, I just feel that each guild has the wiggle room for 1 or 2 players that won't make it to every single raid, but just by the fact of them being there it makes the guild's progress so much better.
    Last edited by Wowalixi; 2013-03-19 at 03:59 PM.

  16. #56
    If it takes 9 raid nights to get the boss because A was there every pull and it took that long to get the boss.
    If it takes 9 raid nights to get a boss because B was only there for 7 raid nights.

    NOW WHAT
    If you have 2 people like that are both the A type they are there every pull so we know it will still only take 9 night.
    If both b type have the same 3 nights missed you get the boss in 9 but if it is a different 3 you could now take 12 nights to get the boss.

    so if you raid only 3 nights a week type A are a given risk at 3 weeks perboss but type B is an unknown that could make you take 4

    and what would happen if you get to a face roll boss that a skill 2 could take if mister B is not there you don't get it that night.

    so if i am looking for a bench warmer i will take type B if i am looking for a Tuesday night farmer i will take A if i am looking for a core replace i will take both if B is not there A get a chance to show me that he can get better if he fail A will get a chance to show me he is there on the days i need him.

  17. #57
    Stood in the Fire Deathpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Alabama US
    Posts
    467
    I would choose raider A because raider A can always improve and learn. I hate it when some one doesn't show up for a raid or rbgs. Because you will have to replace him with someone in trade or the guild that has less skill than raider A.

  18. #58
    The Lightbringer judgementofantonidas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    East Coast USA
    Posts
    3,400
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanguinare View Post
    If it takes 9 raid nights to get the boss because A was there every pull and it took that long to get the boss.
    If it takes 9 raid nights to get a boss because B was only there for 7 raid nights.

    NOW WHAT
    If you have 2 people like that are both the A type they are there every pull so we know it will still only take 9 night.
    If both b type have the same 3 nights missed you get the boss in 9 but if it is a different 3 you could now take 12 nights to get the boss.

    so if you raid only 3 nights a week type A are a given risk at 3 weeks perboss but type B is an unknown that could make you take 4

    and what would happen if you get to a face roll boss that a skill 2 could take if mister B is not there you don't get it that night.

    so if i am looking for a bench warmer i will take type B if i am looking for a Tuesday night farmer i will take A if i am looking for a core replace i will take both if B is not there A get a chance to show me that he can get better if he fail A will get a chance to show me he is there on the days i need him.
    If you did not raid on the nights that player B did not attend then it only took you the nights that you engaged the boss to down him, not the non raid nights.

    So with the non attending competant player you downed the boss in 7 nights, not 9.


    Lawful good does not always mean Lawful nice

  19. #59
    Take the more available player. Skill can be improved, and even people who aren't able to improve their skill can usually be coached through specific encounters, although that may be annoying for the person doing the coaching.

    On the other side, if you have a really good player who's missing raids regularly (I would say less than 80% attendance), your raid is going to feel the his lack of presence on nights when he's out and you don't want that either. For example, say you're killing a relatively challenging boss easily in 1 attempt every week, then your star player is out and you wipe 2 or 3 times on that same boss. That's going to be very frustrating for your whole raid, and you don't want that.

    Bottom line, there's no way to get everything you want all the time, but a stable raid team should be pretty high on your list of priorities.

  20. #60
    The Lightbringer LocNess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Indiana, United States
    Posts
    3,071
    I would rather have a lesser skilled but more active player. Reliability plays a large part in a good raider IMO, and I would rather spend a couple extra pulls per kill than worrying about whether or not we can raid tonight because Player B is gone. However, I come from a dead server so we do not have the backup for Player B that others might.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •