Ohh, that. Yeah, I have encountered a lot of that. Normally, they'd listen when I tried to explain how the meta worked, eventually understanding how to overcome their new problem. But only in pvp - in pve is ironically where I saw the most stubborn strategists unwilling to adapt or compromise. Maybe the time pressure makes people more willing to compromise?
I don't think there's another term for "bad player mimicks good players but refuses to improve their fundamentals". That's where the above always failed. If one particular strategy is seen as powerful, they'd get fed up and adopt it themselves after a while to "see how they like it" and it would 90% backfire because they don't understand the strategy well enough to back it up. Naturally, since they are then motivated by emotion, they are unwilling to listen to an explanation of why they're failing.
Low skill players can come to understand their limits and strategize around those limits. But a bad player cannot come to terms with their limits, ultimately stunting their skill growth. The most tragic player to play with in my experience is the bad player with moderate skill, who doesn't understand just how strong they could become, but has enough skill to carelessly mimick strategies they see, yet crumples when confronted with a high skill opponent.
Eh, I disagree. Making casual into that kind of an umbrella term dilutes the original meaning too much. A casual does not play for 6+ hours a day. A casual never cares to try adopt strategies for the purpose of efficiency.
The only time a casual would mimick a good player is to play around. They would then stop mimicking and revert to their normal play habits. If they stuck with the successful strategy, they would no longer be a casual.
Edit: I'd even say that a casual can be a good player (good players can lose). That would directly contradict the proposed definition. The casuals I encountered were decent teammates as long as I didn't expose them to high stress/skill roles.
Ohh, that. Yeah, I have encountered a lot of that. Normally, they'd listen when I tried to explain how the meta worked, eventually understanding how to overcome their new problem. But only in pvp - in pve is ironically where I saw the most stubborn strategists unwilling to adapt or compromise. Maybe the time pressure makes people more willing to compromise?
I don't think there's another term for "bad player mimicks good players but refuses to improve their fundamentals". That's where the above always failed. If one particular strategy is seen as powerful, they'd get fed up and adopt it themselves after a while to "see how they like it" and it would 90% backfire because they don't understand the strategy well enough to back it up. Naturally, since they are then motivated by emotion, they are unwilling to listen to an explanation of why they're failing.
Low skill players can come to understand their limits and strategize around those limits. But a bad player cannot come to terms with their limits, ultimately stunting their skill growth. The most tragic player to play with in my experience is the bad player with moderate skill, who doesn't understand just how strong they could become, but has enough skill to carelessly mimick strategies they see, yet crumples when confronted with a high skill opponent.
"Casual."
Eh, I disagree. Making casual into that kind of an umbrella term dilutes the original meaning too much. A casual does not play for 6+ hours a day. A casual never cares to try adopt strategies for the purpose of efficiency.
The only time a casual would mimick a good player is to play around. They would then stop mimicking and revert to their normal play habits. If they stuck with the successful strategy, they would no longer be a casual.
Edit: I'd even say that a casual can be a good player (good players can lose). That would directly contradict the proposed definition. The casuals I encountered were decent teammates as long as I didn't expose them to high stress/skill roles.