TIL the true difference between a PvP tournament winner and a WvW roamer

[Arcaedus.7290]

@"Silinsar.6298" said:In the end, when it comes to a strict 1vs1 encounter (with a hypothetical even matchup of different builds), if both players are good, it doesn't come down to who is a lot or just a bit better in general, but who has more experience with that particular matchup in the given mode, how well they read each other and how their playstyles interact. Sometimes you meet enemies that aren't bad, but also not that good, whose playstyle works really well vs you (this is partly due to the fact that unexpected sub-optimal play can work better than expected optimal play * ). And sometimes you beat players that you know to be better than their performance makes them look. That's why I don't go about claiming a player's bad because he's been beaten by me, even if it seemed easy and/or following encounters end similarly. I only have one perspective and can estimate his skill for that particular matchup I create for him. Said player (and the build) might be doing better than me in a lot of other situations.

* A little more detail on that: in case you know Yomi (the game by sirlin), there used to be a "wisdom" on the forums that was basically: top player>veteran>noob>top player. Not that noobs really consistently beat top players more often than not, but they achieved a higher win rate vs them than veterans, due to being less predictable.

I agree with everything you said on the different encounters you face in pvp vs. WvW, so I'll just address 1v1 / dueling which is what I originally intended to speak on.

You make some very interesting points here. I don't think I disagree with you. I made a few tacit assumptions though, so just to clarify:

• Both players are at least competent at their respective game modes and have invested similar amounts of time.
• The matchup of one build vs. another build (assuming equal skill of players) would play out the same regardless of the game mode (if A beats B in wvw, then A beats B in pvp) - probably the least accurate assumption, but it holds true for the most part.
• Both players are using builds that are either meta, or very close to meta
• Neither player is using a cheesy 1-shot build, or an eternal bunker
• We can even discuss the scenario that both are using identical builds or at least almost identical

I agree with your argument though that assuming equal or similar skill (even slightly unequal skill) that this game is more Build Wars 2 than it is about skill. A combination of better build and more favorable playstyle can overcome greater skill. I've seen this dozens of times over. However It's foolish to dismiss how important skill can be, especially for something like dueling or 1v1s which is a somewhat specific scenario that you can become more skilled at. In general, I've found that pvp players (especially the ones who frequent the duel lobbies, and even that free for all arena) tend to have much more practice and experience in dueling, and that's across a wide variety of matchups. They don't just practice A vs. B to death, they practice A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D, etc. and often times even practice their matchups on other classes.

[Silinsar.6298]

@Arcaedus.7290 said:

@"Silinsar.6298" said:In the end, when it comes to a strict 1vs1 encounter (with a hypothetical even matchup of different builds), if both players are good, it doesn't come down to who is a lot or just a bit better in general, but who has more experience with that particular matchup in the given mode, how well they read each other and how their playstyles interact. Sometimes you meet enemies that aren't bad, but also not

that

good, whose playstyle works really well vs you (this is partly due to the fact that unexpected sub-optimal play can work better than expected optimal play * ). And sometimes you beat players that you know to be better than their performance makes them look. That's why I don't go about claiming a player's bad because he's been beaten by me, even if it seemed easy and/or following encounters end similarly. I only have one perspective and can estimate his skill for that particular matchup I create for him. Said player (and the build) might be doing better than me in a lot of other situations.

* A little more detail on that: in case you know Yomi (the game by sirlin), there used to be a "wisdom" on the forums that was basically: top player>veteran>noob>top player. Not that noobs really consistently beat top players more often than not, but they achieved a higher win rate vs them than veterans, due to being less predictable.

I agree with your argument though that assuming equal or similar skill (even slightly unequal skill) that this game is more Build Wars 2 than it is about skill. A combination of better build and more favorable playstyle can overcome greater skill. I've seen this dozens of times over. However It's foolish to dismiss how important skill can be, especially for something like dueling or 1v1s which is a somewhat specific scenario that you can become more skilled at. In general, I've found that pvp players (especially the ones who frequent the duel lobbies, and even that free for all arena) tend to have much more practice and experience in dueling, and that's across a wide variety of matchups. They don't just practice A vs. B to death, they practice A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D, etc. and often times even practice their matchups on other classes.

Yes, the one having more experience in the given build x vs build y matchup likely winning is the first point I made. But it doesn't matter where that dueling experience is coming from. Just as there were active sPvP duel servers, there were dueling "circles" in WvW where you got to practice. And I was talking less about builds countering each other than playstyles countering each other (literally not which build someone runs but how it is played). With two good players fighting each other they'll both have an idea how to approach the fight and what the best tactic is, but the other player might a just and play in a way that makes the assumed best tactic less viable, therefore the other player adjusts again and so on.

This is where reading your enemy comes into play: you try to guess your enemy's next moves based on how he played until now. And that gives you an edge if you guess correctly. That kind of "knowing your enemy"-skill is often, but not always, on the same level as a player's mechanical skill. Both come and improve with experience, but players perform differently well with them. And some players just seem to get reads on you and you sometimes get ridiculously good reads on others (no matter how their mechanical skill compares to yours). Sometimes certain players are just very good (or continuously lucky^^) at guessing what another certain player is going to do. I really have no idea but I think it doesn't only have to do with ingame experience but also with their personal character / personality that shows in certain moments, and it's a skill that partly carries over to and from other games. Assuming both options are somewhat equally viable in the given moment (otherwise it would be an "easy" issue of choosing the optimal option), player X might tend to go for a counter strike when pressured, player Y might be more likely to create a gap and heal. But the enemy might assume they are likely to stick to their innate behavior, so a defensive player might go for the counter strike to land unexpected hits etc. At this point you're effectively trying to be unpredictable while predicting your enemy. You don't try to perform perfect executions every time (which might be effective but predictable!), you try to catch your enemies off guard, even if it means playing in a way that theoretically isn't the best way to use your skills. Correct predictions and doing things in an unexpected way makes imperfect plays the deciding factor. Though that also depends on you performing these imperfect/unusual and when it comes unexpected (between your "bad" plays) absolutely perfect plays without unintentionally messing up. And if you mess something up, improvisation skills are required to salvage the situation. Or even benefit from it, because things you didn't want to do have a high chance of having surprised your enemy too :)

I think this kind of interaction, employing ever-changing tactics and trying to estimate each others actions (for more details), has become increasingly difficult to spot in GW2 (partly due to the power creep pushing the extremes leading to less fights were builds stand similar chances and this aspect of combat is crucial), but it is still part of the game. And it plays a big role in truly even fights between mechanically apt players. But these are so rare that it's hard to get practice for your yomi skill in this game.

[Koen.1327]

wvw is closer to pve than being competitive (wish it was different)i've seen mitril+, dominators and known commanders barely making it gold pvp league, which is entry level where players have just managed to bind hotkeys and have no clue what skills are in the game. This makes me believe the majority of the wvw players haven't done anything else than following a tag and pvd for years. Of course this translate to weak roaming skills

most likely if you see a good roamer in wvw, they are also experienced in pvp

[melandru.3876]

1v1 most pvp'ers aren't that great tbf, that goes to the good wvw duelists/roamers

lucky for us, pvp isn't about having the most kills. i'd glady let you have more kills, you just let us out-rotate you. deal?