Good versus skilled players

Playing in this atrocious PUG today got me thinking about this dichotomy between "good" vets and "skilled" vets.

Skilled vets would constitute what most people call "good players"--that is, people who are god-player with the mortar, awesome riflewhores, top scoreboards, etc. The problem with these players, however, is that they don't do the grunt work of teams, such as building turrets, radars, vfs, keeping the rax repaired, killspawning, etc.

"Good" vets constitute a tiny fraction of the current vet player base. These vets are people who might not be objectively very skilled, but whichever team they join has a disproportionally high tendency to win, whether it is because these players killspawn as soon as asked, check for ninjas, ninja the enemy cv, are charismatic enough to lead rushes, etc. (Bonus points if you can do this without a mic).

So I guess what I would ask is which category do you fit more in? Note: I am not asking if you are "skilled" or "good" in an objective sense, but whether you are relatively more skilled than good, or more good than skilled.

If you feel that you are both good and skilled, make a post explaining why you think thus, because I have a feeling that if I were to make a poll option reading "I am both good and skilled" we would have too many egoists vote that (and I cannot count more than 5 players in the current Empires community who would constitute a part this group anyways).

 

I wouldn't go as far as saying I'm good but I enjoy the stuff you listed in your definition more than I enjoy besting someone with a rifle so I'll vote that way. For a while I got really kind of obsessed with getting better kdrs, climbing the scoreboard and improving my rifle play, which got better but it made the game really stale for me after a while.

I find I'm not very consistent, I often find myself doing something I know is stupid and not really care. I have good and bad days and it usually depends on my mood and how the game is playing. If the game is really intense I play it that way, if it is slow paced I'll go round and get refs and build defense rather than trying to CV rush. I'm never above building turrets, kill spawning, defending main or trying to flush out a scout.

 

I am more of a dream player.

Usually a nightmare, and mostly to my team.

 

I suppose that a quicker definition is that skilled players win 1v1s, but good players win games.

 

I am more of a cream player.

Usually chocholate, and mostly to my team.

 

For me it's really dependent on how rusty I am. If I'm rusty then I'm man enough to admit it, and will compensate by trying to make myself useful by building stuff and doing the other things you mentioned. If however I'm on form then I'm more likely to whore some aspect of the game going for a ridiculous point count. I end up leading (i.e. telling people what to do) nearly every round I play anyway, commander or not.

 

Depends on the mood i'm in, the map, time of day, ...

I'm not often enough a good player to vote for that, so i voted skilled.

My main problem is i can't handle too many tasks at once. If 4 people are talking at once, 5 are chatting, i'm in a dangerous area where i have to pay attention to every corner and keep an eye on the minimap for a more complete battlefield overview ... my brain crashes. It can't come up with anything tactically viable anymore at that point. It's preoccupied with other stuff. This is why i'll never be a good player. And as i get older, it'll only get worse.

Also voicechat both makes and breaks a match for me. I don't reckognize ANYONE's voice (well except for etho's in the past) so i have no idea if it was some player on the other side of the map who spotted a tank, or my personal squadleader who wanted to inform us about the danger coming right for us. Looking at the names doesn't help when multiple people are talking, and it's again more stuff my brain has to handle.

Again, this is why i mute everyone except for the comm, squadleaders and my own squadmates. But then people start switching between squads depending on which teams need help and everything gets messed up again.
Since a squad voice channel was shot down as a suggestion in the past, i just accepted i'll rarely be a good player. Certainly not for serious games when voice chat actually gets used.

 

I'm a good player. Definitely not very skilled, but if my team wants to listen to me, I can comm my team to victory (probably need to practice a few times again now though, it's been AGES since I've commanded). If I'm in a squad with people who know what they're doing, I'm a pretty good support Engineer as well.

People don't seem to like 'good' players though, I once lost as comm because my team was full of 'SUPER LEET VETS WHO CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT'. At the end of the round, a few guys yelled that everything I had done was crap and thus I wasn't voted into the comm chair anymore

c0ck

 

Makes me smile still

 

I don't know what category I fall under, everyone has mixed feelings about me.

 

I am more of a fail player.

Usually catastrophic, and mostly to my team.

 

We should add a seperate category (ubergodskilledandgood) for our big lurker. ( NIHIA )

 

I commanded a squad three rounds and they all failed to listen to my commands.

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO FOLLOW YOUR FUCKING LEADER?

 

im gud

 

Winning 1v1 is too mainstream, why not 1v5.

and yah, that wins the game too.
*voted good player*

 

I'm a skilled player. I always top the scoreboards and I get all the bitches. It's just how I roll.

 

You voted good? You've got to be shitting me ...
What do I have to vote then? "Worse than horribad" ???

 

You have it lightly brot, I have exalcty opposite problem.

 

can you make an "annoying bitch" option for paradox?
Also i demand one for myself. "JeepTard"