Player skill level classifications

[RiyahArp]

I would assume you would be diametrically opposed to these sorts of classifications.

I'm not against classifications as descriptive. The problem is that people assign moral worth to social classes way too often, and tend to give a pass or be blind to the negative aspects of the higher classes. Elitism is more or less arguing that the difference classifications also have different value and different importance in themselves. This is very common in life...not just the game, and people tend to not realize how much they do it. There are always rich people, but you can really dislike what they do as a class. You have to realize the social classes exist before you can be angry at what they do.

It's impossible to classify millions of players into such few boxes. How would you classify a player that could definitely do all 'hardcore' content but they don't want to deal with the stress or can't ever find the time to do it? Would you call them casual? Midcore? It's way more complex than that.

Idk, people have made the point of intention, but this is more based on what players would actually do. I mean more about what aspects of the game you try. I couldn't classify based on how people see themselves; i mean what started this was hearing someone describe themselves as a casual ultimate raider.

These aren't set in stone though, they were just an attempt at trying to view different kinds of players as they exist. TBH i thought it might be good to have a little more positive content from me than i usually do.

[MoroMurasaki]

I'm not against classifications as descriptive. The problem is that people assign moral worth to social classes way too often, and tend to give a pass or be blind to the negative aspects of the higher classes. Elitism is more or less arguing that the difference classifications also have different value and different importance in themselves. This is very common in life...not just the game, and people tend to not realize how much they do it. There are always rich people, but you can really dislike what they do as a class. You have to realize the social classes exist before you can be angry at what they do.



Idk, people have made the point of intention, but this is more based on what players would actually do. I mean more about what aspects of the game you try. I couldn't classify based on how people see themselves; i mean what started this was hearing someone describe themselves as a casual ultimate raider.

These aren't set in stone though, they were just an attempt at trying to view different kinds of players as they exist. TBH i thought it might be good to have a little more positive content from me than i usually do.

Fair enough. For what it's worth I very much agree - skill does not make someone inherently to more valuable in the setting of a video game and I think this is why I've used casual/hardcore to refer to skill levels more than something like "good/bad" as Driavna suggests.

Going to be blunt: stop mixing player skill (good-bad) with time played (casual-hardcore). All of those categories are more about feeling good because something is below you than anything else.

I mentioned my boyfriend before. He is objectively less skilled than the rest of the people I play with but I would never describe him as "bad". He knows the content he can participate in with his current level of effort and stays within those realms. I feel like people who are so ready to call other players bad probably don't have many friends across different levels of play.

Also I just think the subjectivity of using good or bad is really suspect. To my boyfriend I'm good, to someone like Elia Sand I am awful. Arbitrary skill assignments (especially with inherent value attached to them) are just silly and a way to stroke people's own ego imo. If you (general you) need to call a huge number of people bad in a public forum just to feel better about yourself perhaps you need to work on you a bit.

[Doozer]

It's impossible to classify millions of players into such few boxes. How would you classify a player that could definitely do all 'hardcore' content but they don't want to deal with the stress or can't ever find the time to do it? Would you call them casual? Midcore? It's way more complex than that.

[Dzian]

Ii mean what started this was hearing someone describe themselves as a casual ultimate raider.

Why is that an issue? They're separate measures as such they can coexist. There's a couple of people I know still doing ultimate bahamut with there friends because they literally only do it for 2-3 hours one day every weekend or there abouts. They are doing ultimate raids incredibly casually.

[MoroMurasaki]

Why is that an issue? They're separate measures as such they can coexist. There's a couple of people I know still doing ultimate bahamut with there friends because they literally only do it for 2-3 hours one day every weekend or there abouts. They are doing ultimate raids incredibly casually.

I feel like it's fairly clear that Riyah doesn't use the terms casual and hardcore in the same way that you do and to be confused by the statement you've quoted you would need to either have not read her OP that started this thread or be feigning ignorance.

I understand that people using words to mean different things can be confusing but in this instance the framework has been laid out explaining why the concept of a casual Ultimate raider would essentially be an oxymoron to her. To question why such as thing doesn't make sense feels disingenuous or uninformed.

[Dualgunner]

I feel like it's fairly clear that Riyah doesn't use the terms casual and hardcore in the same way that you do and to be confused by the statement you've quoted you would need to either have not read her OP that started this thread or be feigning ignorance.

I understand that people using words to mean different things can be confusing but in this instance the framework has been laid out explaining why the concept of a casual Ultimate raider would essentially be an oxymoron to her. To question why such as thing doesn't make sense feels disingenuous or uninformed.

First, I think within the realms of Riyah's gauge here, "Soft-Core" not only fits better in the scheme of things than "Casual" due to fitting the naming scheme, but also because there's less time-commitment connotations to it.

Second, the thread started because somebody described themselves as a casual ultimate raider. That in and of itself speaks to the need to separate the term "Casual" out: casual for time commitment, and perhaps a new term for skill level, possibly the coined "Soft-Core." You will not be in ultimate with a Soft-Core or "casual" skill level, however you can be in there casually, as in not dedicating overly long stretches of time to it.

[MoroMurasaki]

First, I think within the realms of Riyah's gauge here, "Soft-Core" not only fits better in the scheme of things than "Casual" due to fitting the naming scheme, but also because there's less time-commitment connotations to it.

Second, the thread started because somebody described themselves as a casual ultimate raider. That in and of itself speaks to the need to separate the term "Casual" out: casual for time commitment, and perhaps a new term for skill level, possibly the coined "Soft-Core." You will not be in ultimate with a Soft-Core or "casual" skill level, however you can be in there casually, as in not dedicating overly long stretches of time to it.

I think the issue at the root of most of the misunderstandings here is that (despite quite a long OP) people seem unable to wrap their heads around the idea that someone uses the terms casual and hardcore differently than they do. Personally my definitions are more closely tied to Riyah's (they represent skill levels and generally content completed) than to this idea of them being purely about time invested.

I think perhaps the idea of supplanting casual with soft-core could be fine but at this point if we want to look harder at the reason behind the thread than at the results it produces we just need to understand that language, particularly language surrounding a relatively new and niche topic like gaming, is rarely going to be the same across the board.

Riyah had a hard time reconciling someone describing themselves as a casual Ultimate raider with her skill-based definition of casual and made this list to express her thoughts on the terms casual and hardcore. People have responded from the camp of a more time-based definition for those words, saying that they don't represent skill levels.

At some point everyone has to realize that neither of these definitions are inherently correct. Gaming jargon has evolved quickly and continues to do so, to expect uniformity is to be incredibly unrealistic. To some people casual means little time invested, to some it means only a certain tier of content completed, to some it surely means something else entirely.

If everyone argues from the stance of "no, my definition is the correct one" this becomes a pointless conversation.

I think the most important thing is that no matter the words we use to describe any of these facets of the playerbase we understand that other people may use and interperet them differently so context matters. We also have to avoid attaching negative connotations to any of them as best we can. No one deserves to be looked down upon for any of these traits. Assuming someone doesn't know what they're doing because there is a sprout over their head is just as bad as assuming someone with an Ultimate weapon will be rude or standoffish.

"Casual" in it's most literal sense is a player who does not do anything that requires a time commitment. So most of your Tank and Healers in duties, regardless of skill level, are easily this, along with people who just login to do weekly things. "I got 15 minutes, what do I play?"

"Hardcore" in it's most literal sense are players who overcommit to everything. Duties, Raids, Hunts, Crafting, get everything to 70 on as fast as possible. And also complain that there's nothing to do, yet still grind away. "I got 8 hours a day to grind out tomes/raid to gear all my jobs"

Anything in between are players who know and set their limits. They don't commit to things they just don't want to do, maybe they will do it later, maybe never. You don't need 9 ranks for this.

While I find all of Kisai's post objectionable (shocker lol) I take particular issue with this part.

First and foremost - she does not set the definitions for these words. Her say is not the final one. As long as people continue to use these words tied to other meanings there will be too broad of a potential use to tie them down to such a small scope.

Second - her definition of hardcore just screams her huge bias against the entire raider community. She views these people who dedicate themselves to perfecting and optimizing their play as somehow "less than" because they don't share her warped view of how the game works. Saying they "overcommit" to things (how does one overcommit to hunts? Maybe by using that pesky third party hunt tool :thinking: ) as if there is a predetermined level of appropriate commitment.

News flash - there isn't. For some people who have time to spare this game is their one big hobby. It's fine if it isn't yours but to put someone down by implying they have no self control just because they're doing better than you is really shortsighted and ignorant.

[VictorTheed]

Interesting thread, was a good read.

Judging by those classifications I would fall into the high casual category.

[Sigma-Astra]

I think I probably place myself at high midcore to low hardcore at best on most days (when I'm not sick), at least.