New vs. Old, Beta vs. Not

[IKerensky]

Well I want to point out something you seems to implicit and I dont agree with.

You say that :

'Old'/'Good'/'Experienced' players know what's it like to be a 'New'/'Bad'/'Raw' player

So apparently you say that an old player is also a good and experienced one and a new player is obviously a bad and raw...

Seems more right to say that there is

Old players and New players.
Good players and Bad players.
Experienced and Raw players.

Old players are usually Experienced players, but that doesn't make them automatically Good. Some Old players are still Raw ( lack of playing ) and even Bad.

New players tend to be Raw, and this affect their gameplay wich tend to be Bad. But some New player learn fast ( forums ) and play a lot wich build them Experience ( developped by years of practicing similars games ) and make them Good players.

You start to see my point ?

Problem seems that people keep using Old/Betas as an adjective opposite to News/Newbies. They uses thoses as taunt and equivalent to play quality or game knowledge ( "Stupid Newbie" ).

I guess we can go a long way toward correctness and mutual comprehension if we all make effort to try to use the Right adjectives for the Right people toward their Right capability.

[Gandalf Parker]

There are excellent new players. The problem is that the game is very deep, and the balance is not the type of balance people expect from other games. It is not a "chessboard" balance which many games use where the pieces are all equal but slight variations in color. it is not a player-vs-player balance where each nation is expected to have equality with every other nation.

Its a world balance where something can seem way out of balance but as long as there is a counter tactic somewhere then its not considered broken.

Im not talking about the clams or the Vampire Queen discussions specifically (the devs are already showing an interest there if the excited people in those conversations dont piss them off). But this is about new players vs old players. We often hear the new players tell us how broken things are.

There are some great new players. There are new players who can beat me in the game. Most especially new players for very useful for exploring new areas and finding new twists. But dont be surprised that if they explore old territory and declare it broke, that the reaction they get is "play some more"

[Scott Hebert]

Actually, I never intended to say that newer players are necessarily any less skilled than older players. If you thought that, I apologize.

What I wanted to make clear (and obviously didn't) is that those words _are_ being used synonymously in most threads. And there is a grain of truth to it. With age comes experience, and there really is no substitute for it.

Anyway, I am sorry to have confused everyone. I thought the quote marks would have been sufficient.

[Tricon]

Instead of bashing/chastizing all "new" players or all "old" players in a thread, I'ld rather PM the one I have a disagreement with, lay down some basic rules of conduct and then continue the discussion in a civil way in a thread of my liking. "New" players have every right to question the ballance of a game unknown to them. "Old" players have every right too inform the "new" players how or if they are mistaken.

The discussions here are the main reason I come to this board. I think everybody has seen forums with much worse behavior.

Reminds me of Axis and Allies. Some think the technological research (superweapons etc.) is unballancing, others say it belongs to the game. Now those who don't like it, play without it. Same can be done in dom2 via modding the VQ [just as an example]. But if you stumble across somebody who wants to play with the rules as they are in the game, you have to either compromise or find a new oponent.

On a side note: happy cinco de mayo (5th may)to all mexicans out there.