Mentor minimum requirement is too low / needs adjustment

[Altena]

So many people are hung up on the idea that most of us are saying mentors are supposed to give "advanced" ins and outs of specific jobs etc.

Most of us (myself included, if you read through the OP properly) aren't even talking about an "advanced" level of knowledge.

My example in this case (in the OP) was a tank who just didn't have a clue on absolute basic game mechanics such as dodging a ground AoE or pulling melee mobs next to ranged mobs so it's easier to keep it off the healers.
This stuff is basic level PvE content, it's not about advanced rotations or how to clear A12S.. Lol...

I also disagree that mentors should be required to clear A12S. I mean what happens when next raid tier comes out? Suddenly we don't have a single mentor for the first week or 2, then after that we have maybe 1 or 2 parties per server at most (on the more progressive servers) who manage to clear the last fight? That just flat out wouldn't work. Some servers wouldn't have mentors for weeks after a new raid patch..

I do like the idea of a tiered system. A basic mentor that can tell you where to get your chocobo, where to go for your next class quest, etc.. And another who can give you PvE advice in dungeons or basic stuff about your jobs. However I do feel like the requirement for both PvE and PvP should be higher.

In regards to all of the people saying - playtime doesn't equate to player skill, I do agree to some extent however I disagree on a different level.
Someone with high playtime has a higher likelihood of being more knowledgeable about the game. I am not saying this is always the case, as there are always exceptions in every rule. I mean on the flip side of that, someone who has played the game for a month may know just as much as someone who has played for 2 years.. It however is "generally" not as likely, and a newer player with less logged hours is more than likely not going to be as knowledgeable. I mean I am sorry to say, but practice does make perfect. Someone who does spend a lot of time on the game, (afk or not) more often then not has enough interest in the game to go over and above a basic level of knowledge.

So no, playtime does not ALWAYS equate to higher level of knowledge, however on a general level - someone who plays the game more frequently than someone else has a higher chance of being more knowledgeable.

[Risvertasashi]

Late as I am, I'll post a contrary opinion anyways:

I do not think the mentor requirements need adjustment.

You do not need much to be an effective mentor. Keep in mind a mentor can help a sprout from the very moment they step off the boat. With things like controls, basic menus and systems. Or things like that level 5 "fill in your gear slots" quests. Not everything about mentoring has to be about taking them to the heights of raiding or the very nuances of peak endgame performance.

And, for that matter, Mentors are human: They might be trying new things, and it might have been literally years since they've been in some of the older instances, so yes they may have forgotten some basic mechanics. They might not necessarily be an expert on a given job or instance they're playing right now.

And for all we know, that tank might have gotten their mentor status through crafting. Which just means, even if they're terrible at tanking and PvE, they have a different area of knowledge.

What matters far more is attitude. I see mentors, experienced at raiding mentors, complaining when the roulette throws them into an instance the newbies have trouble clearing and cursing that they can't just abandon. But really the good mentors are those that want to help, and are willing to seek out an answer to questions they might not know the answer to already. If someone wants to get into ex/raid level content with all the details of their job that comes with it, more power to them and mentors that can play at that level to help them get there. But you really don't need to play at that level to help fresh newbies. You do need to want to help them, though, instead of cursing them for wasting your time.

(And OP, you could easily unlock mentor status through the DoH/DoL requirements).

Lastly as a pragmatic note: No matter what you set the requirements to, there will be "bad" mentors. I think it should be relatively accessible as I think attitude matters most of all.

[Altena]

(And OP, you could easily unlock mentor status through the DoH/DoL requirements).

Nahh, I am super lazy with grinding collectables as I said in my OP, and from the top of my head that is part of the requirement.. I probably make the DoH requirement but I am far too lazy to go get DoL collectables. I did a lot of crafting before HW but slowed right down after it came out mostly because I wasn't a huge fan of grinding DoH/DoL equivalent weekly Tomestones.

I am not really fussed to become a mentor anyway, however I do feel strongly about those that wish to flag themselves as "knowledgeable" and someone that can offer advice to new players, then I would expect a degree of knowledge basic gameplay mechanics such as dodging ground AoE (The thing that annoyed me was this person wasn't even attempting to move).. It just forced me out of Cleric more than I would have liked, which was fine but as a healer that likes to DPS, it was frustrating to watch the tank not even attempt to avoid damage.

The absolute kicker for me was when the sprout gave the mentor advice.

[Risvertasashi]

Fair, but

The absolute kicker for me was when the sprout gave the mentor advice.

It's funny, but this really just shows how arbitrary it all is. The sort of person that's willing to give friendly advice, and seek out knowledge when they notice they don't have it... I'm OK with such people being mentors even if they're not walking encyclopedias. But setting very long time requirements or other things will just mean people like this you see will be old *and* still bad at it. Meanwhile, newer but skilled players that might have picked up a lot of knowledge quickly... would be locked out.

If there's a good way to filter "willing to help" I might be OK with that, but I can't think of a way. Adding very high instance, time, commendations, whatever... won't filter out the selfish and lacking.

[Altena]

It's funny, but this really just shows how arbitrary it all is. The sort of person that's willing to give friendly advice, and seek out knowledge when they notice they don't have it... I'm OK with such people being mentors even if they're not walking encyclopedias. But setting very long time requirements or other things will just mean people like this you see will be old *and* still bad at it. Meanwhile, newer but skilled players that might have picked up a lot of knowledge quickly... would be locked out.

If there's a good way to filter "willing to help" I might be OK with that, but I can't think of a way. Adding very high instance, time, commendations, whatever... won't filter out the selfish and lacking.

Well yes however you don't just suddenly gain a title because you are "willing to help". You could be clueless but still willing, which is where the problem lies. A playtime filter would at least filter out people who PotD'd their 3 rolesand spammed a bunch of dungeons. I guess my point in this is the requirement is just flat out too low. Yes some people that are willing and likely knowledgeable will have to wait until they get to that point - however on the reverse end of the argument you won't have as many people who meet the requirements that don't have a clue.

You don't just get something because you are "willing" to get it. You have to earn it as well.

I think what other people suggested is a great idea - having a lower entry for the "willing" people, and a much higher requirement for becoming a PvE or PvP mentor. Sure, those "willing" people are more than welcome to offer advice in a dungeon, however it will weed out a lot of the sprouts that look to the mentors for advice, while the mentors are busy eating a bunch of avoidable damage.

It is definitely nearly impossible to get a perfect balance in this case, however the chances of a player with higher playtime being more knowledgeable about the game is more likely than a sprout who is.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

snip

You are drawing a false equivalent. Mentors are not college professors, they are intended to be people willing to offer advice for no tangible benefit beyond the help itself. A better comparison to Alpha's stance is people who volunteer their time at senior citizen homes or feeding the homeless. Neither are paid yet people do it purely out of the satisfaction they helped someone else. The raider comparable makes no sense as its an entirely different mentality. We raid specifically for rewards, be it our personal parses, gear or a pretty little title. Mentoring is meant only to teach new players in the same sense people who make various guides for jobs get next to nothing for their time and effort. A prime example on Balmung is one of the top tier raiders who joins learning parties purely to teach people how to clear Savage. They get literally nothing out of it except knowing they helped a new raid group get their first clear. That is what I imagine Alpha is referring to.

Dangling a carrot only encourages people with no interest whatsoever in helping new players to put on the silly little crown and grind for a mount. If you want to say removing the aforementioned "carrot" would see mentorship die instantly. By all means, but it is an opinion.

[Risvertasashi]

You don't just get something because you are "willing" to get it. You have to earn it as well.

In my mind the current requirements do that. You have to have experienced the game from 3 different roles from low to high level, and people have to have been happy enough with you to have commed 300 times. Even if someone does PotD spam 2 of those, they'll still have to have done all the regular content on at least 1. It's not perfect, but it is a foundation of a somewhat balanced experience. And very importantly: At the very least they can share experience, and tips they've learned or things they wished they new, with new players now going through the same thing for the first time. To me, that's highly relevant -- new players have a lot to get to before they can worry about the max level stuff and beyond. Even if it is as simple as "This is how to use PotD to level your second job and beyond quickly".

I guess where we disagree is... if someone hasn't learned by then, I don't think simply upping the tickmarks they need to check off will do much.

(Now, really: I really think SE could do with moderating the novice network and mentors in general. I've seen MMOs run by much smaller companies that have had hired and paid staff to watch their newbie channels, or an "official volunteer" program for moderators... would be nice if SE could step up to the plate there.)

Edit: As a side note, though, thank you for keeping the discussion civil. Too often these sorts of things on this forum... can get a lot more heated.

[Brian_]

You are drawing a false equivalent. Mentors are not college professors, they are intended to be people willing to offer advice for no tangible benefit beyond the help itself. A better comparison to Alpha's stance is people who volunteer their time at senior citizen homes or feeding the homeless. Neither are paid yet people do it purely out of the satisfaction they helped someone else. The raider comparable makes no sense as its an entirely different mentality. We raid specifically for rewards, be it our personal parses, gear or a pretty little title. Mentoring is meant only to teach new players in the same sense people who make various guides for jobs get next to nothing for their time and effort. A prime example on Balmung is one of the top tier raiders who joins learning parties purely to teach people how to clear Savage. They get literally nothing out of it except knowing they helped a new raid group get their first clear. That is what I imagine Alpha is referring to.

Dangling a carrot only encourages people with no interest whatsoever in helping new players to put on the silly little crown and grind for a mount. If you want to say removing the aforementioned "carrot" would see mentorship die instantly. By all means. but it is an opinion.

It's not a false equivalency at all.

For a lot of skilled players, if you want them to dedicate their time and effort to something, you are going to need to entice them to do that.

If you want a qualified professor or teacher to teach at your school, for most, you're going to need to give them proper compensation.

Like I already said, will some help out purely for the sake of helping out? Sure. I join plenty of learning parties just to help out. But, plenty of PF listings for learning or weekly clear groups go unfilled for their full listing time limit or turn into trap parties. Clearly, there aren't enough people like me to support a self-volunteering system. In the ideal world, I'm sure we'd all love it if 3-4 elite helpers joined all our learning parties. We don't live in that world.

Which is exactly the same as raiding. Are there some people who raid purely for the enjoyment and challenge? Yea. There are. Are there some people who raid purely to improve as a player? Yea. That's actually part of why I join some groups as a helper. But, are there enough to support a self-motivation system or justify content designed for that purpose? No. We already saw what happened with SCoB Savage and that still had titles.

And if you removed the lore / scripture / gold and the achievements / associated rewards from mentor roulette, would the number of people doing it drop a lot? Hell yes it would.

Taking your example of helpers, if said helper desperately needed 300 scripture for an upgrade 2 hours before weekly reset, do you think they'd still spend those 2 hours in that learning party? For the overwhelming majority of qualified helpers, hell no they wouldn't. However, if they got 300 scripture for teaching that party effectively, would they join? I would. I'm sure a lot of people would. At that point, it just comes down to having a system in place that properly assesses the job a mentor has done.

We already see this happen with tomestone bonuses whenever tomestones are really needed for something. Unfortunately, because there is no real incentive to actually teach a player rather than just carry them outside of some fights like Sephirot EX, A11S, and other fights with restrictive assigned mechanics, people end up learning very little.

Imagine if you could bypass the weekly Savage book and chest restriction if 4-7 people in your group have newbie bonus. Would more helpers join groups? Hell yea. That's what rewards can do. Then it's just a matter of dealing with people exploiting the system and really finding a way to encourage education over carries. Fights with restrictive individual responsibilities like A11S already accomplish this.

[Brian_]

So just to clarify --

We need to clear up some fundamental lapses in logic in this topic.

First off, if you increase the requirements for mentor status, does that guarantee you'll have better mentors?

As a whole? Yes.
On an individual basis? No.

But the important point is likeliness. Is it more likely that someone who has run 5000 instances as a tank will know more about their job's performance in content than someone who has only run 10 instances? Yes. Obviously. Is it more likely that someone who has run an instance 100 times will know more about that instance than someone there for the first time? Yes. Obviously.

This is the same backward logic people use to support baddies who have terrible dummy parses. They say that just because someone has an impeccable dummy parse doesn't mean they'll parse well in a live fight. Yea, parsing well on a dummy doesn't guarantee they'll parse well in a live fight. But, it increases the likelihood that they can. Meanwhile, if you have a terrible dummy parse, you aren't suddenly going to have an amazing parse in a live fight. You're still going to have a terrible parse.

It's about likelihood.

If your goal is to teach players how to play their jobs well, will a requirement like clearing Alexander Savage guarantee that the mentor will be proficient on their job? No. But, the likelihood that they are is higher. Are there players who haven't cleared that are as good or even better than some people who have cleared? Sure. But, as a relative percentage, the percentage of cleared players who are of a proficient skill level is significantly higher than the percentage of uncleared players who are of a proficient skill level.

Unless you are using a very detailed screening system, increasing likelihood is the best you can do.

And the next lapse in logic -- that skilled players aren't necessarily skilled teachers. I actually agree with this point. But, I'd just like to point out that while they might not be skilled teachers, you can still function as a great text book. And, a great text book potentially helps a self-motivated student much more than a skilled educator who is teaching them incorrect things. This is why PoV videos are a thing. There is no commentary. There is no explanation or hand holding. What it comes down to is whether or not the student can decipher the information he is given rather than have the teacher spoon feed it to them. Stuff like fflogs is a veritable treasure trove of information but few know how to really learn from it. There are plenty of players I have never met or talked to that I have learned more from than any mentor.

So, even if I had no idea how to play DRG, I could still point a player struggling with DPS in Sophia EX or Zurvan EX to a few good fflogs parses and tell them to pay attention to general up-time, buff timing, buff syncing, buff up-time, DoT up-time, geirskogul count, and average damage on certain skills with positional requirement. I could tell them to look at the event tab for the GCD by GCD break-down for key moments in the fight.

[Shougun]

So many people are hung up on the idea that most of us are saying mentors are supposed to give "advanced" ins and outs of specific jobs etc.

Most of us (myself included, if you read through the OP properly) aren't even talking about an "advanced" level of knowledge.

My example in this case (in the OP) was a tank who just didn't have a clue on absolute basic game mechanics such as dodging a ground AoE or pulling melee mobs next to ranged mobs so it's easier to keep it off the healers.
This stuff is basic level PvE content, it's not about advanced rotations or how to clear A12S.. Lol...

I also disagree that mentors should be required to clear A12S. I mean what happens when next raid tier comes out? Suddenly we don't have a single mentor for the first week or 2, then after that we have maybe 1 or 2 parties per server at most (on the more progressive servers) who manage to clear the last fight? That just flat out wouldn't work. Some servers wouldn't have mentors for weeks after a new raid patch..

I do like the idea of a tiered system. A basic mentor that can tell you where to get your chocobo, where to go for your next class quest, etc.. And another who can give you PvE advice in dungeons or basic stuff about your jobs. However I do feel like the requirement for both PvE and PvP should be higher.

In regards to all of the people saying - playtime doesn't equate to player skill, I do agree to some extent however I disagree on a different level.
Someone with high playtime has a higher likelihood of being more knowledgeable about the game. I am not saying this is always the case, as there are always exceptions in every rule. I mean on the flip side of that, someone who has played the game for a month may know just as much as someone who has played for 2 years.. It however is "generally" not as likely, and a newer player with less logged hours is more than likely not going to be as knowledgeable. I mean I am sorry to say, but practice does make perfect. Someone who does spend a lot of time on the game, (afk or not) more often then not has enough interest in the game to go over and above a basic level of knowledge.

So no, playtime does not ALWAYS equate to higher level of knowledge, however on a general level - someone who plays the game more frequently than someone else has a higher chance of being more knowledgeable.

People went to that, myself included because I feel that that majority of the suggested solutions in your OP wouldn't solve the issue given, maybe even make it worse. Play time is not an indicator of any skill or knowledge beyond the first few experiences (which are well defined in the requirements of the mentor system already), and I disagree that it increases probability of being useful beyond a nominal amount after first experiences (20 hours compared to 100 hours in, the understanding of basics changes incredibly little if at all). You don't know what they've done with that playtime - there is an incredible amount of things to do and not do, playtime would dictate what.. how well they can afk could be one yes lol.

I do not believe playtime should be seriously considered as it will only reduce the amount of mentors we have while offering near zero quality improvement (if not actually a less). Besides the 1,000 instance requirement assures that people have seen basic mechanics, adding time that would go over the amount of time it takes to do 1,000 instances, MSQ, level 60s, wouldn't add extra basic knowledge if you didn't catch it already in that time frame (seriously, after all that content and you don't have basics down? Extra time isn't going to solve it lol). Time would be a gate without results.. You do not need to play for very long at all to learn how to dodge circles, and if that's your only gripe (basic mechanics) then again playtime is the antithesis for a solution.

At 1 hour into the game I can guarantee you, on any mmorpg I've got the basics (dodging the bad circles, pressing 1,2,3) - and I assure you these people who generally "get" a game do too. But you'd gate these people because you want to assure better quality yes? But if you check lodestone (as I've done quite a bit) a lot of these people who mess up have other high end classes or achievements, again you'll not do much with playtime. I guess just play some LoL/DotA/HoTs for a while and you'll see easily people who have hundreds of hours doing awful and those with a tenth doing better, play time is not an indicator of skill beyond the first hours (at which point you either picked up the basics or you didn't).

If you want to weed out poor quality the only good way to do that is a test - specifically a test that relies only on yourself, or I suppose we could just leave the settings alone :/. So this is where the hang up arises as I've seen your issues myself, but I don't think you're ever going to be able to solve them unless you introduce an actual quality test. Also as I'm keenly aware of the issue Atoli was bringing up and like the idea of tests as you could complete these very quickly (given you're skill level, and the test level you have to achieve could be based on the rank you want - basic mentor doesn't even need to do them I suggest, just a roulette mentor and higher requirements for higher tier mentors). I don't think you can solve mentors being rude unfortunately, even if you can make sure whatever tier/title they yield means something.

We don't need general helpers (those kind people as Atoli described) having a harder time being helpful to the community, again I am strongly against the suggestion of just upping quantity rules because at 1,000 to 2,000 will mean no substantial skill difference.. just a lot of time and a lot less mentors. General tier helpers do not need any more gates, except to turn off the mentor titles they didn't unlock (like DoH/DoL unlocker being able to mentor as a DoW, but didn't meet the DoW qualification). If you want better helpers in combat though then again, just adding quantity isn't going to amount to anything besides seeing less mentors. Perhaps that's a bonus? Of course as talked with Atoli, doesn't really make sense to require massively difficult content to help people go kill HM titan, although I argue a bit more so on EX content, but it might not hurt to add future tiers to the system who want to be mentors of end game (in which case you do have to do something quite difficult). Also I believe it would help to show those who are general helpers and those who are particularly good at their job, since you can have someone be helpful in a dungeon but not actually know how to play their job that well and shouldn't be watched as a skilled player on that job (would help to know, might reduce mentor hate as well "oh they're new to BLM, but they can make sure we get through the dungeon at least!". As the worst BLM I've seen in recent memory was actually a mentor, made me cry inside lol (but they were at least leveling, so hopefully it just meant "learning")).

1,000 instances at 10 minutes a pop is 166 hours (10 minutes is an estimate, but we do have many other requirements too so I feel its fair). If you don't know the basics at 166 hours of actual play time you're not going to know them at 200 (and a generic play time requirement will include AFK time, which many people just leave their character on all the time - so unless you seriously inflate the playtime number.. it's again for multiple reasons, not going to be helpful). Only those who had to learn and prove that they learned the basics would know them for sure, and you do that by a test.

The rate at which people improve exponentially decreases with an increase in quantity is what I'm saying. The difference from 1 hour to 20 might be a lot, 20 to 100 less so - especially for "basic" mechanics. The further out you get the more meaningless the change is. As I said if you're awful with basic mechanics at 1,000 there is not a significant change you'll actually be good at 2,000. Except that the novice chat room mentors probably just got cut in half or more.

I guess i'm being a little vehement on this time thing lol but I seriously value those who take the time to teach and help others and I loved reading Atoli (and others) talking about helping even though they haven't played a boat load and or mastered everything with perfect rotations on savage. Extra time gates then we have will only hurt the kind. Simultaneously I'd love to see a solution to your issue where we can have certain mentors expected to be decently good at the content you see them flagged as mentor in (in which case, time isn't going to change it, nor will achievements). Also why I've been trying to suggest general mentor, and "star"/ or basically proficiencies inside the mentor system as well as it turning off when you're in content you don't meet the "advanced" requirements to be mentor for (like end game content).

If you have to pass a content that says you know how to do basic stuff (something that specifically only relies on you, no carrying team mates) then you can have 100% expectation that they can and are capable of doing it, similarly they the mentor know that is the expectation of them (as it was their test to gain the rank whatever they earned).

If you want to be able to expect more than we already have, you have to know they're capable. There is only one way to do that, we already have plentiful time gates - you need something else (or no change).