Last active [hidden]
@Motoko I read this somewhere... Keep in mind that the Asians had to play sin split and those types of gimmicks because Anet officially shut down their asian GW1 servers. They couldn't stand a chance playing anything interrupt reliant.
Correct servers were the biggest issues and so was lack of experience vs top guilds due to time zones. No way for them to observe or play against top american, euro teams consistently. Also as previously mentioned for asians to even attend certain popular at times or mat's they had to stay up till 3 in the morning ( start time ) and stay awake until 8-10. Keep in mind these monthlies HAD much longer swiss rounds. 6-8 swiss rounds on top of playoffs, quarters, semis, finals. that's a whopping 10-12 game mat. But also normal at's were a lot longer as well. I had spoken with ero in the past a lot and these were the biggest issues.
@LosDopos Besides that, the game has evolved dramitacly. These guilds were in their prime when VOD, sinsplit in particular, was still a thing (no offense). I'm curious if they are able to adapt to the current meta - cause the last time asians came back, that didn't turn out too well. Always cool to see old players returning though.
No, I definitely agree with you they had to abuse mechanics in order to win games. And that largely has to do with a variety of reasons. Do I think their new team is going to be good? No, they aren't reforming Me or HAnD it is just a couple Me + HAnD players playing with their gw2 friends. Some of these players I noticed are using pve characters with inadequate equipment when I scrimmed them. And they run oddlot builds. If anything I don't believe they're trying to be serious. However if they were serious I don't see how they could ever come back given timezones and servers. ( btw for those who don't know japanese players play with consistent 600+ ping on a good day. )
Did they abuse stupid builds? Yes, but they still placed pretty consistent top 16 and even top 4 in 100k series. (spnv losing in finals, Me losing in finals, HAnD 2 x 100k... etc. And HAnD was more of the honorable type of guild. They ran a wide variety of builds; however, sineptitude was no stranger to them either. I think given the situations against them I understand why they did. Really too many variables to say how they would have done in todays meta had they been given a fair shot.
Even if you're abusing mechanics if you're place high consistently when guild wars when in it's prime I'd say you're good regardless of that fact.
not spnv but Mistral Edge[Me], I was guested in a guild for a scimmage battle against GO. They still have 2 beginners + Act Hel logged around
Yeah, they also have tak prot monk who used to play with HAnD. They have decent old school monks but rest of their team is not very xp from what I have seen.
@TheNap The main reason for the "get as many matches as possible" thing was that there were no actual "learners" left, since I believe all the side work like advertising in PvE alliances/Kamadan etc. stopped.
Is this any different currently? Are there any full-on GvG-newbies attending the event? I don't hink so, and that's why all this theoretical discussion on how the optimal teaching event should be ran is kinda waste imo.
That was also the reason I wanted to merge your project and this one back then @Curiousity
There were a lot of newbies there when I was there... I even brought like 6-7 people at a time when I went but regardless I am a firm believer that older builds that I previously mentioned give people the opportunity to make mistakes, learn from them, and play a match where they actually retain and gather experience. I disagree with current meta being (or most) meta type builds being good for learning. This is my opinion. If it works for you guys great. I didn't see that but again perhaps I missed out on the ones that were actually educational.
@SISTRENS I don't completely agree with regard to that point. Bear in mind that the scope of teaching scrimmages is, at least theoretically, to prepare new-ish players for real GvG matches. To me, and arguably to past and present organizers, teaching scrims are not a charity act, but a way to expand the dwindling player-base. I think it is necessary to stick to meta bars, because these are the bars learners are going to have to use as soon as Sunday scrims are over and they register for Monday AT.
Regarding monking: while it might be true that it is harder now than it was in the past, and that it has a different learning curve if compared to, say, Elementalist (of which I genuinely am not sure, having not played any profession throughout the years), I feel that people who are motivated in learning how to play Monk should be prepared to cope with the related difficulties, or change preferred profession. Regarding split, do not forget that dedicated split bars require a lot of coordination to be run properly, making it challenging in a format like teaching scrims. In the six or so nights that I attented, I have hardly seen any split teams, and many 8v8 scenarios - possibly making it easier for monks, too.
I agree with that. Unfortunately, teachers sometimes - luckily, only SOME times - come with their baggage of of experience and arrogance. I know for a fact that this has discouraged at least a couple players from attending scrims any further.
Alas, teaching scrims do not exist in a vacuum, but are a product of the current GW community - the same community that can barely find enough people to play daily scrims, since daily ATs are a mirage. Personally, I believe that being pressed gw2k17™ is sad, and being pressed tryhard in gw2k17™'s teaching scrims is beyond human comprehension. Nevertheless, not much can be done about it. The number of experienced players is low, and to keep scrims going they are required. One can only hope people would understand their behaviour has consequences.
I don't see how monks would have the capacity for such growth if you don't take things step by step. Most of the players who are good by todays standard took almost 5-8+ years to get there. Especially when they are for the most part just getting stomped by more experienced players. I believe for upcoming monks the essential core skill sets in the game are required and by such should be exposed to older metas where it is okay for mistakes to be made since it would be less problematic than the builds today. Right splitting is relatively difficult which is why Mind Blast split is user friendly and friendly for people to respond to. Because it takes times for npc's to die and rits/monks can heal thru it indefinitely. Where as today meta splitters have armor ignoring damage consistently off cooldown and ready to switch targets continually with little cons. Which is why I'd never opt for a teaching scrim to engage in another split form. MB split was always noob friendly. That is my opinion and largely why I see the other scrims having had a tremendous short coming. I don't see the fun element and many people I encouraged to play did not either but again perhaps under different oversight than "yoshi's" it went downhill.
@LittleYoshi The fact that everyone is playing 3 monks and are running flag on their midline makes it that much easier than 1-2 years ago.
You cant argue that teaching scrims are not supposed to be fun. A lot of new players come/came, because it was fun in addition to it being helpful. If teaching scrims were 100% just about teaching and no fun allowed, then a lot of learners and teachers would never consider doing this.
I havent organized or been to scrims for almost a year now, so I cant say anything about people tryharding or teams not being balanced, but it is definitely possible to have 28min matches and we almost had too many back then for people to complain about it.
Just as an example.
Perhaps I missed "your" teaching scrims then because I encouraged 15+ people to participate most felt discouraged, saw nothing but bickering after matches ( I experienced some too!), and saw no goals for people other than being given a bar. I don't constitute that as fun especially when Nap himself stated he agreed that it mostly turned into a "get in as many games as you can" kind of event.
Nick you're a bot/cheater and have limited understanding of the game aside from graciously playing an ele and running around the map. Please do not go out of your way to convince the masses you're anything but those things. What I said was not wrong but I wouldn't expect somebody who was rank 200-500 by the time of 2011 to even comprehend that. That's like stating you were rank 10,000 in 2006. Anyways, not responding to you further (I think from here on out I'd like to only reply to people who legitly played and never once cheated)
@LittleYoshi To be honest I have no idea where the idea of "too much damage and not enough defense" comes from.
As someone who has played tons of games as flagger I would say that playing backline right now is so much easier than it was 1-2+ years ago. (Of couse without random ele fluxes)
I dont know how the scrims were going a few weeks ago, but as a organizer once and also teacher for it I can say that it is definitely needed to ban certain skills or builds for teaching scrims to keep the games balanced aswell as make it fun for learners.
Skills like Wastrels are difficult to play against and way too strong for unexperienced players to deal with, or for example Invoke would usually lead to 2 teams playing spikes with 2 Invokes against each other and one team dying in 2 or 3 minutes,while also demoralizing players with way too much blind spam.
Back in the day I tried to play Dirt/Awsm-spike as often as possible, because for me it was a great teambuild to learn different aspects of the game and had enough counterplay to learn how to play defensive or offensive and gave your team the possibility to split and counter splits.
Good example for playing non meta builds is Holye when he was still an organizer. He would try to recreate builds like old rawr-spike with some different newer skills and we used them for teaching scrims.
The builds might not have been the best, but were definitely fun to play for some people and maybe they were a good way to practice, who knows. In the end those scrims finished with people questioning, if it is really usefull for new players to play a midliner ritualist or not and that playing more meta builds would help more.
Imo there are way too many people complaining about this project. Nobody forced anyone to do this and it all started with people like Louise, Godly and others trying to teach some new players the basics of GvG and get more players involved in GvG. A lot of time was invested in this by many different organizers and I wont deny that over the last few months this has become more about having fun than teaching, because it is a lot less time investement for an organizer and most learners have been to those scrims for a few times already.
Even if these scrims have become more relaxed I feel like it is still a good chance for new players to start and find a team to play with.
1) In what other meta did you consistently have to dedicate midliners to running flags for MAJORITY of games? This isn't only because party heals got weaker it's also because methods of shutting down rit's became easier and also because rits can not handle splits. (more reasons lol) (or your team wipes ;/ if flagger runs)
2) Eles / mesmers / dervs do not need explaining on why damage is retarded now.
3) Teaching scrims were hardly ever meant to incorporate fun. Unless of course you're talking about the more experienced players trying to try hard wins. There are no pre-determined goals in mind when attempting to explain synergy, executing synergy, and also getting people prepared on how to play defensively or offensively. A brief pre-written description for each bar could easily do this for people.
4) I am not complaining about demise/ certain skills being banned. I'm complaining about forced mirror matches, less diversity (only meta shifted) bars that literally must have experienced backline in order for people to survive. -> EX just one inexperienced monk with the bars you guys usually use results in rapid wipes for a very good reason as previously described in other post. Or crazily imba teams due to experienced monks on one and inex on others.
5) My complaint isn't that scrims are more lax it's that it is a horrendous method for people to actually learn their position and learn fundamental basics within the game.
Watching the field
Preparing for spikes
ETC ETC ETC....
How would I incorporate this? For starters I would not look at meta builds I would return to older builds such as
Balance (older versions)
Stand rit / stand monk midliners
Mind Blast Split (for splitting, following splits)
*no flags* -> MIRROR 8 v 8 Tainted Flesh 05-07 varient team builds / adjusted builds (teach offensive / defensive play styles and synergy)
These are all very strong methods for players to develop core skill sets and also use synergy in order to play defensive or offensively.
Problem I have is while you are moving in the right direction of trying to "form for an environment" that caters to teaching it never gets done. The other teaching scrims which were a complete cluster fuck and joke just involve people classifying them as teaching scrims, running enforced bars, and bitching about matches after. Realistically what you end up with is more experienced players attempting to try hard and win without explanations of why you are doing the things you're doing. Which isn't a problem for those with experience or who have participated in gvg to an extent but definitely makes those who are less experienced or have non existent gvg history more fearful of participating.
Also, I didn't like how the builds were very limited and focused soley on meta bars. Meta builds in this environment are EXTREMELY difficult for newer players or less experienced players to handle because think of this. The amount of damage is the highest it's ever been in gvg history. Meaning playing monks, flaggers will be extremely difficult. Defending against splits is extremely difficult. Why older builds were never considered or newer builds with less conventional methods were used for the sole purpose of teaching/fun baffles me. And this largely is why teaching scrims failed even more so. Because again it's less emphasis on teaching and fun and more emphasis on getting as many games as possible.
If you truly want to teach make it less about winning/losing, make it less meta oriented, and make fun bars that really make it easier for people to sustain, and understand what they're trying to accomplish. THIS is the right away to attempt to lay the foundation for people to retain knowledge, gain experience, and then be able to apply what they have learned to meta settings. I.E training wheels.
if you buy bots from him I will bully you online