World Class PvP vs Amatuer PvP and a Ranking System
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
02-05-2010, 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by
A Little League Baseball team will not defeat a Major League Baseball team, ever. Seems reasonable, right?
So what makes you think the novice, below average, average, above average, fair, somewhat good, good, very good, excellent or exceptional STO PvP players stand any chance against World Class PvPers?
I mostly disagree with this, and with the analogy.
Little leagues players are limited by the fact that they are physically children. They can't physically compete with the major league players. Even adult versus adult, major league baseball players represent a lot of physical training that the average person doesn't have.
But when it comes to, say, Star Trek Online PvP, what's really separating a crappy player from an awesome player?
I mean, I think I'm pretty awesome. And there is certainly a mental discipline that helps a person become good at PvP. But I don't think I'm some PvP genius, obtaining strategic heights closed to mere mortals. I think anyone should be able to do as well as I do if they just took the game seriously enough to actually look at the items and stats, look at what's working for other people and just go out there looking to win and kept that up for a week or two. We all start out sucking at the game but a week or two of aiming to win is enough to put you in the big leagues, in my opinion (especially in a game like this that doesn't have a huge dependency on "gear" and other things that can artificially separate you from the "pros")
My guild team has run other teams off of the map. They just quit. We don't even make a point of harassing our opponents, they just declare it's hopeless and give up.
Then, later, a guildmate and I ended up in a 2v5 -- us versus 5 Feds on Ghost Ship. It eventually became a 3v5. I should have noted who the third player was because he was a trooper too. The stupid server crashed when it was 39 vs 38, our favor. Giving up wasn't ever on the table for us. We just did the best we could and it was going well for us because 3 people trying to win is better than 5 people who mostly don't care.
That, I think, is what really separates winners from losers -- not some mysterious skill set, but just wanting to win and making a mental effort towards that goal.
So yeah, I can see creating a league. I can see where that could be good, to go up against even matched teams more often. But it's really a workaround for an underlying problem: too many people out there don't care to get better, quit when the going gets tough, don't see the fun in a challenge, can't see the challenge in a losing scenario and want to play against other lazy quitters like themselves rather than just getting better at the game.
In summary, there are three groups of people:
Everyone starts off as a newbie. In a game like this, where you go from there is up to you.