Good Vs Bad Player

[Vhailor]

I actually have a very different definition of good vs. bad players (compared to the OP), and most people I know seem to share it for the most part. It's easier to define in the negative, so I'll start with that.

A 'bad player' isn't someone who comes in unprepared, it's someone who can't react or learn or engage in what might be called 'rational behaviour' in the game environment sense. For instance, in the XIV sense, a bad player would be an individual who routinely gets hit by standard red-zone AoE, or doesn't figure out Ifrit's plume rotation within the first few runs, or doesn't understand the most basic elements of tanking despite reaching level 50 on a Paladin.

A 'good player' is someone who doesn't embody these unfortunate traits. They learn quickly, adapt rationally, and while they make mistakes, they don't generally make the same mistake twice. Such a player will also generally recognize when their gear is insufficient for a particular challenge, which is why they are rarely seen engaging Garuda with a level 45 weapon and full AF.

TL;DR - Both good and bad players can do their homework, or not do their homework. A good player will quickly learn whether they have or haven't researched the activity in question, while a bad player will fail to be proficient whether they have done the homework or not.

PS - This discussion, from my perspective, is completely separate from the question of whether or not someone is enjoyable to adventure with. While I generally prefer adventuring with good players, there are plenty of talented jerks, and plenty of wonderful people with dubious skill.

[Sixmp]

I actually have a very different definition of good vs. bad players (compared to the OP), and most people I know seem to share it for the most part. It's easier to define in the negative, so I'll start with that.
A 'bad player' isn't someone who comes in unprepared, it's someone who can't react or learn or engage in what might be called 'rational behaviour' in the game environment sense. For instance, in the XIV sense, a bad player would be an individual who routinely gets hit by standard red-zone AoE, or doesn't figure out Ifrit's plume rotation within the first few runs, or doesn't understand the most basic elements of tanking despite reaching level 50 on a Paladin.

A 'good player' is someone who doesn't embody these unfortunate traits. They learn quickly, adapt rationally, and while they make mistakes, they don't generally make the same mistake twice. Such a player will also generally recognize when their gear is insufficient for a particular challenge, which is why they are rarely seen engaging Garuda with a level 45 weapon and full AF.

TL;DR - Both good and bad players can do their homework, or not do their homework. A good player will quickly learn whether they have or haven't researched the activity in question, while a bad player will fail to be proficient whether they have done the homework or not.

PS - This discussion, from my perspective, is completely separate from the question of whether or not someone is enjoyable to adventure with. While I generally prefer adventuring with good players, there are plenty of talented jerks, and plenty of wonderful people with dubious skill.

I wouldn't say my version is that much different to yours. You agree with me on the point that "homework" is more of a choice of playing style rather than proof of being a good player as well :P
I did spend more time pointing out that for the most part people i see screaming and shouting are usually stating that people who don't come totally prepared to a fight including watching videos etc are bad players.