Why are people so spectacularly bad at playing their classes?

[Kongas]

In my experience the very worst leaders are experienced players fast levelling alts. They know how an instance should run, in theory, if they and everyone else were end-game players and get fixated on that tactic.

Even though their mid 50's level guardian can't hold aggro against the first critted Endurance Stance Quick Shot of the end-game hunter in the group and a completely different set of tactics are called for.

Or is telling me to fear or stun something I can kill in ten seconds flat as that is the way it used to be run way back in the day.

But it has to be said I've been lucky and either not come across such terrible players as some of you have or just not noticed as we succeeded anyway.

[nirsul]

..snip ... If a stranger expects you to be grouping for their benefit and not yours, they're severely delusional.

And of course the inverse is also true. You should be expecting a stranger to group for their own benefit and not yours, or else you're severly delusional too. See the irony?

This is the attitude that's the problem here: you should ALL be grouping for a collective rather than a selfish benefit. But of course, as I've said throughout this, far too many people who like to judge the skill levels of others can't get that simple point.

[Fionnuala]

Typically in life when you are asked (or expected) to take someone under your wing, you are either getting paid for it, working off some community service sentence or you have a personal reason to invest in their future. Very few people in life are altruistic for any other reason.

That sounds great! Let's encourage more of that in the world!

[Vhivi]

Except you're ignoring the key: someone has to WANT to learn to actually be able to.

I didn't ignore anything, you apparently missed the point that I was making. To boil it down, I said you don't need an instructor in order to learn. Even an instructor can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn, but that's a completely different issue than the one I addressed.

Remember the adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." That's what you're pointing out.

If a horse is thirsty, it's going to look for water and will likely find it all on its own. That's my point. You don't have to lead it to water. That countered the point of "If a horse is thirsty, you have to lead it to water." That's not true. It may speed things up, but if you don't do it the horse will probably still find a drink ... eventually.

[MRNot]

lol right.... I have no experience actually leading at all. Not end-game raids most certainly. I'm just along for the ride and happen to always have the button. Right......

FWIW, I respond to this particular post just because it was the one I got to when I decided it would be more important to make this point & risk repeating than to read through the rest of the thread first:

As a bystander to this discussion, I strongly suspect WH & SouthPa are not so diametrically opposed to each other in principle, but just that communication styles are different enough that one or two minor misinterpretations may have lead to an escalation.. I think you're probably both dang good leaders.. 'nuff said.

[Southpa]

You're contradicting yourself there. "It's not my way or the highway, but if you don't take my way you get the highway. So, ok, it's really my way or the highway."

Different levels of control there, bro. Listen, I don't care how you do it, just get it done. Do it your way or do it my way, just get it done. If I'm leading and you don't follow your assignment, then you're a liability (unless you're my friend and then I will forgive you.) Is this philosophy new to you? Doing your own thing in a group when the leader asks you to do something else...yeah, highway. If I describe a manner of doing something and you get it done a different way, then no highway. See? Not the same thing. Point? Get 'er done.

As I said, you want to lead, have at it. I will follow your direction. Every time. And I will not disappoint you. Unless of course your idea is wrong, then I will correct you.

On the other hand, I see whheydt's point; there's a meaningful difference between "we need" and "I need". Everything you've expressed about the groups you lead is in terms of your expectations and your needs - not the group's. YOU don't need someone interrupting; the GROUP does.

If I'm giving the instructions, it's my choice of words to use the frame of reference I use. If you're in OUR group and are going to get all butt-hurt over semantics and choice of words, then WE don't have time for types like YOU.

This is part of the difference between a leader and a supervisor. Your attitude is that of a supervisor or babysitter, coddling and complaining and giving terse instructions until you your charges do exactly what they're told; whheydt (and I, and I think the vast majority of players) would prefer a leader who's (apparently) less self-absorbed and more interested in the collective outcome.

How nice of you to judge my leading style over a debate in forum-speak. lol
Those who know me know the real me - not the me you wish to typecast.
You know, what you say is actually more insulting to the people in OUR raids than it is to me personally. Make them out to be mindless fools who are subject to the whimsical tyrannies of a self-absorbed leader. Hehe, this is too funny... thanks for making me lol.

If I wasn't an effective leader of skilled players, OUR groups wouldn't get the things done that WE do. But WE do get things done and WE don't drive people away because I act like the tool you think I am - or the tool I might portray myself as in forum nonsense.

A leader lets people know how to succeed. "I'll show you how we can all do this together" is how a leader approaches things, encouraging people to develop actual competence instead of just following step by step instructions.

They are not the same thing at all.

As much as I appreciate the life lesson, I don't need it thanks. OUR kin is apparently happy and I am apparently a good leader blessed with a plethora of skilled kinmates because WE accomplish more than most kins. So if you choose to call me a supervisor, so be it. In the end, I'm just the little guy with the button next to his name that makes sure #### gets done - for the benefit of ALL.

[Aloro]

Different levels of control there, bro. Listen, I don't care how you do it, just get it done. Do it your way or do it my way, just get it done. If I'm leading and you don't follow your assignment, then you're a liability (unless you're my friend and then I will forgive you.) Is this philosophy new to you? Doing your own thing in a group when the leader asks you to do something else...yeah, highway. If I describe a manner of doing something and you get it done a different way, then no highway. See? Not the same thing. Point? Get 'er done.

Lol. Whatever. It's your way or the highway, but it's not your way or the highway. Have it both ways.

You're still failing to understand the fundamental difference though between giving instructions to NPCs, and providing leadership to people.

If I'm giving the instructions, it's my choice of words to use the frame of reference I use. If you're in OUR group and are going to get all butt-hurt over semantics and choice of words, then WE don't have time for types like YOU.

Random homophobia aside, I don't care in the least what style you use in your groups. First, I'm not particularly sensitive; I was trying to show you a difference in how to approach leadership, not protect my sensitive nature from the big bully. And second, it's not types like ME that we're talking about, but hey, thanks for the random ad hominem. S'cool.

How nice of you to judge my leading style over a debate in forum-speak. lol
Those who know me know the real me - not the me you wish to typecast.

Who you are comes across loud and clear, especially when you talk at length about your groups and your instructions to them.

And I have no actual interest in you, meaning no offense. I don't have any wish to typecast or misrepresent you at all. I'm merely judging you by your words. That's all.

You know, what you say is actually more insulting to the people in OUR raids than it is to me personally. Make them out to be mindless fools who are subject to the whimsical tyrannies of a self-absorbed leader. Hehe, this is too funny... thanks for making me lol.

Well, no. That's random.

I wasn't talking about them at all, and wasn't judging them in the least. Just because you see yourself as a drill sergeant, that doesn't mean the people in your group see themselves as raw recruits. Just because you issue terse instructions to people, that doesn't mean they're mindless drones or anything. It just means they put up with you for whatever reason. Maybe they're your friends, or maybe your groups do well. Maybe you're actually a good supervisor. Maybe you're a skilled player. Maybe they're bored. Maybe they have daddy issues and like being supervised. Whatever, I don't care.

If I wasn't an effective leader of skilled players, OUR groups wouldn't get the things done that WE do. But WE do get things done and WE don't drive people away because I act like the tool you think I am - or the tool I might portray myself as in forum nonsense.

As much as I appreciate the life lesson, I don't need it thanks. OUR kin is apparently happy and I am apparently a good leader blessed with a plethora of skilled kinmates because WE accomplish more than most kins. So if you choose to call me a supervisor, so be it. In the end, I'm just the little guy with the button next to his name that makes sure #### gets done - for the benefit of ALL.

Maybe the groups do well DESPITE you acting like a tool. That's quite possible, you realize? And frankly I don't know that you do act like a tool. Rather, I think you probably act like a supervisor who thinks he's a leader. And moreover, you clearly act like one who knows absolutely everything he'll ever need to know. So, hey, I'm happy for you. Carry on. It's all good.

[DestinationLove]

somehow i have the feeling we were in the same group.
the RK was traited for dps, yet joined as a healer?

I nearly replied to this thread earlier, telling from my so far quite ok experiences, but after that run i thought, nah, better not

I sincerely hope that RK learns from that experience, either clearly saying:
i am traited for dps and want to dps, not heal. thats certainly fine with me, and if the group only needs heals, he can leave and look for another group where he can dps.
or if he decides he wants to take the healing job, he should look after his traits and retrait if necessary, especially if the leader advises him on what exactly to trait.

When I tank GS on my warden (for kin or desperate pug that has been looking for a tank for 20 min) I tell the healer to go dps until Igash. At the end, I tank Igash and the archers and have done it with only cap/burg/LM healing/rebuffed. At this point, GS HM can be easily 3-manned and can probably be 2-manned (though I haven't heard of anyone doing it), and so wiping there is now a concerted effort. It's easy to blame the healer, but really there must have been plenty of blame to go around.

I have had kinnies tell me: Runs are more fun/ go more smoothly/ are easy when I'm around, and it ends up being true. For all those individuals that complain about their experiences with poor players, what do all those experiences have in common? Maybe you should try upping your own game? The fact of the matter is that MMOs have high player turnover. You just have to get used to it as a cost of doing business, and incorporate recruiting/training into your playstyle. If you can't, you may want to look into a different genre.

[nirsul]

I didn't ignore anything, you apparently missed the point that I was making. To boil it down, I said you don't need an instructor in order to learn. Even an instructor can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn, but that's a completely different issue than the one I addressed.

Remember the adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." That's what you're pointing out.

If a horse is thirsty, it's going to look for water and will likely find it all on its own. That's my point. You don't have to lead it to water. That countered the point of "If a horse is thirsty, you have to lead it to water." That's not true. It may speed things up, but if you don't do it the horse will probably still find a drink ... eventually.

Which wasn't my point. The key there was not the "people have to want to learn" sentence, it was the "people don't care" about this stuff enough to actually want to learn anything. That is, the final sentence in that paragraph was the actual point.

That's the whole problem here: there's absolutely nothing that happens to people if they don't learn. They can still get PUGs later no matter how "badly" they play, they can go about their gaming without any consequences whatsoever in the long run to not learning. And if the PUG succeeds, they even get rewarded for being "bad" by getting the shiny they wants. And if someone calls 'em on it in the usual condescending way, it's that person they see as the problem, not their own play.

In other words, what makes you think people are in fact "thirsty horses" seeking to learn anything? IMO, it's not about "if a horse is thirsty ...", but rather "why would a horse by a pond ever actually be thirsty"? You can't make people care given the whole social dynamic here; they have to do so on their own.

And true, you don't need an instructor to learn. However, you have to have some ability to figure things out on your own without one. So, what meaningful lessons are people learning from bad PUGs? At least some of the people here tell you the lesson is not to group at all. See the problem? If you aren't willing to steer people the right way, they'll draw the lesson they want to, rather than the ones they need to often enough.

And exactly how would doing the same (easy) instances again and again help them learn anything by doing? What exactly is it that's so challenging they have to figure it out? I suppose they could at least learn the lesson of staying out of the way and not hindering the people who do know what they're doing. Otherwise, what exactly are they doing that's going to be so great for real (tougher) instances anyway?

[Southpa]

Lol. Whatever. It's your way or the highway, but it's not your way or the highway. Have it both ways.

You're still failing to understand the fundamental difference though between giving instructions to NPCs, and providing leadership to people.

No, I just don't subscribe to your evaluation or your perspective and you have no idea how I really operate. You know some of what I think, but that's where it ends. It's because I'm not sensitive to your particular needs, desires or preferences as expressed in a video game forum that you feel you have the right to judge my fitness as a leader. K. You fashion yourself as speaking truths while you speak subjectives.

I've never been in a group lead by you so I won't judge you on a personal level. I might take issue with what you type in a forum, but I won't claim to know you as a person. We might even be a lot alike, since you may already know I'll never back down...

I was trying to show you a difference in how to approach leadership

How quaint. Thanks for the tip?

Who you are comes across loud and clear, especially when you talk at length about your groups and your instructions to them.

Right. So maybe when I'm verbally handing out assignments (gasp, shame on me as the leader), I actually say, "_____, you need to do ____" or maybe sometimes I say "I need you to do this". Do you really think the majority of people give a rip what I say? To dwell on it to the level you seem so fixated on? The point is understood regardless of what is said. I'm hardly disrespectful. If I'm in a group and someone says, "Wootie, I need you to do this", should I correct him and his profane choice of words? lol
Get over it eh?

I know you think you're pretty cool telling me how to be your textbook leader and all, but do you practice what you preach? Are you a leader? Or do you just like to tell supervisors how they could up their game and be a real leader if only they were more careful with their choice of words? That's a lol. Truly. Being a leader is about more than making pretty speeches.

Well, no. That's random.

I wasn't talking about them at all, and wasn't judging them in the least.

You didn't mean to, but you did. Do you think I would repeatedly follow a leader (or supervisor, heh) who I didn't respect or appreciate? Who's methods were suspect, off-the-wall or disrespectful? I follow people I respect and appreciate and I'd think anyone with one iota of self-respect would do the same. I feel most fortunate to have hooked-up with the people I have in this game and I respect many of them as I would a close personal friend.

So by attempting to assault my character based on my choices of words in a forum thread about bad players...yes, you are indirectly judging those who allow me to lead (or supervise, heh) them through content because you think you can make an example of me.

Maybe the groups do well DESPITE you acting like a tool. That's quite possible, you realize? And frankly I don't know that you do act like a tool. Rather, I think you probably act like a supervisor who thinks he's a leader. And moreover, you clearly act like one who knows absolutely everything he'll ever need to know. So, hey, I'm happy for you. Carry on. It's all good.

And this is where you're completely wrong. Since you seem to need some help:

lead·er  [leed-er]

1. a person or thing that leads.

2. a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.

And to help you a little more with what it means to lead....

lead[leed]

adjective
verb (used with object)
1. to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort
2. to conduct by holding and guiding
3. to influence or induce; cause
4. to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.


What characterizes a leader is completely subjective. You have the answer to what makes a leader in your eyes only (and anyone who agrees with you). You know what type of leader you will follow. Good on ya. That's an important thing to know.

To me, leaders inspire people. They keep morale up. They are a valuable resource for technical and emotional feedback or guidance. They have an agenda for which they use various personal skills and the talents of their peers to carry a vision from inception to completion. They are something people look up to within the context of that which they are working forward on together.

One question that is always asked in a job interview for something with leadership capacity is for you to define what a leader is. Do you think they want the textbook definition? Or do they want to know what YOU think a leader is? So you don't think I'm a leader, but rather a supervisor. Great. Your absolutes are hardly more than opinion.

[Celestrata]

As this thread has gotten a little too personal for some, I think we're going to end the conversation here.