Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
This Forum is Read Only

Best gear only or need not apply.Follow

#1 Apr 22 2010 at 11:59 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
472 posts
I see a comment in almost every post regarding stats or armor and such for XIV about how you will be shunned if you don't build your character the cookie cutter way or don't have the most elite gear for your job and how the freedom of building a more diverse character will not be accepted. I feel sorry for those of you who played XI and were subjected to that mentality. There were certain standards that needed to be met like gear for your correct job and correct level but for the most part I never ran across the elitism to the extent that people are implying on these boards. It was pretty cheap to have decent gear that would get the job done and for the most part I never heard anyone complain about party members that were doing a good job even if their gear wasn't the best. In fact I remember alot people giving gear to the less fortunate or stopping at the moghouse to grab a peacock charm or leaping boots for a party member to use if they seemed cool, I was both on the receiving end early in my career and on the giving end as I leveled my 2nd and 3rd main jobs. I for one am looking forward to a more diverse group and more diverse set of weapons and armor and stats and abilities.
Bring on the diversity I say.
____________________________
Foo Mania/Istory
FooFighter/Quetzalcoatl retired
#2 Apr 22 2010 at 12:08 PM Rating: Decent
*
57 posts
I think diversity is good. Hopefully there will be a way to measure someone's committement to playing their character well other than having ONLY one particular item or spell. Options are good, but then they also need to be recognized by the community as an indicator that someone is serious about how well they play. That translates to how much someone respects the time and effort of everyone else in the group. What bothers me is busting my rear to have good food, spells and equipment, and then group with someone who is less prepared and less efficient. Time is so precious and sometimes the best way to know if someone is going to waste the group's time is by what they are wearing.

I hope there are other ways to quickly evaluate a player when you don't know them otherwise I do not see how this will change.
#3 Apr 22 2010 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,822 posts
I've yet to see one post shunning anyone for anything FFXIV mechanics related so far since only a select few are even in Alpha, and still trying to figure it out. I think it's still way early for anyone to say anything about cookie cutting or the way to properly form one thing or another. Where the **** are you getting this idea from?
____________________________
Long Live Vana Diel.
#4 Apr 22 2010 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,317 posts
Here's how I see it. You have systems like subjobs or talent points that create this "illusion of customizability*". You think you get to choose which aspects you want to enhance or upgrade, when in reality if you don't choose this or that particular combination then your performance is severely impacted. While this is certainly present in offline games, it becomes particularly glaring in MMOs where you're going to be judged on the choices you make. It becomes less about what's fun for you and more about what's gonna get people to let you participate with them.

A personal example: When I first heard about FFXI I wanted to be a summoner. Summoning magic has been my favorite component of the final fantasy series since I started with VIII, and from the description of the job in GMR it looked like the best thing ever. And then I saw red mage with their enspells and I knew what I wanted to do. I wanted to be this magic swordsman who would blast enemies with the spells corresponding to the avatar I was fighting beside at the time. Fast forward a couple months and I learned that, far from being this destructive force, I was going to be a last resort cure bot whose summoning magic amounted to little more than an afterthought. It was go /whm and main heal, or GTFO. Sure, I could plug away as SMN/RDM in some remote area somewhere, but if I wanted to have any hope of advancing I needed to make like a dead fish and go with the flow (to borrow a term from the half-governor).

Unfortunately there's always going to be some way of doing things that's better than the others. The key is making it so that there's not this huge disparity between the best, and the rest. I don't think FFXI managed it, I'm hoping FFXIV will.


*probably not the word I'm looking for but you get the point

Screenshot


Edited, Apr 22nd 2010 4:37pm by Redyoshi
#5 Apr 22 2010 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,150 posts
When I played FFXI, there was a level 70 THF in my social LS that still wore AF. I didn't mind partying with him all that much because he had a good attitude, even if his skill & equipment left something to be desired.

As far as FFXIV goes, since I'm starting my own social LS/guild (I'll probably be playing far too casually to do anything endgame), I can safely say that I won't tolerate the "uber gear or GTFO" mentality. I won't expect people to have top-notch gear in a game that's being designed to be more solo friendly. The only thing I want is for people to give it their best; having a thorough knowledge of your job and great gear will just be a bonus.
____________________________
FFXI-Garuda 2003-2009; Lakshmi 2011-8/20/13 (retired)
FFXIV: ARR - Ghost Bear, Balmung server
#6 Apr 22 2010 at 2:45 PM Rating: Decent
*
57 posts
What I hope is that somehow, being aware, and being smart, is enough.

Like someone mentioned above, the idea of a RDM/SUM (or whatever it was) is not a bad one. In fact, it makes a lot of sense. It just had limitations in FFXI.

So what I want to see is that someone can be a true asset to their group just by knowing their class really well and being a smart player, making more class and equipment combinations possible. I don't know if that is realistic. I mean.. how do you playtest that?

OR at the very least make it so when certain class combinations are not used in a group that they have viable solo uses. I would love to play a THF/WHM while farming without getting spanked for it.
#8 Apr 22 2010 at 3:47 PM Rating: Default
**
346 posts
With the way the character options look to me, it seams like too fluid a system for people to immediately become cookie cutter snobs. I think it will be at least a year or more into game play that the real Cookie Cut job combos will start coming to light. And hopefully, by then, SE will have come out with an expansion or something to make the Cookie Cutters have to spend some time reorganizing their mentality.

I am also counting on the 1 toon world to help deal with elites. If someone is an elitist D-bag to me because I'm not wearing my "(Insert item here)" then I'll just know that I need not party with that guy again.

With this being a more casual game than 11 was I'm expecting a larger # of elites than 11 had but I'm also hoping that they'll end up keeping to themselves since they'll probably **** off 90% of the servers pretty quickly.

Eventually the elitists will only have themselves to play with.
#9 Apr 22 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
133 posts
One of the main issues in XI was the lack of diversity in gear. There simply wasn't enough gear per Tier, not even close. XIV needs to greatly expand on the amount of gear available to help end the issue stated here. No one should be vilified just because they don't have that one elite piece of gear that take's hours and hours on end to earn or millions upon millions of gil.

I think the issue will be addressed however as it is one of the biggest concerns among the community.
____________________________
Now Go,
Stand up to a giant!
Said that I'm a fighter.
Too drunk to remember.
Too drunk to..
#10 Apr 22 2010 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
*
109 posts
as long as we evolve into the sense of "have enough to operate at an efficient level, everything else is gravy" then I think we'll be fine

the folks from FFXI who didn't have elite blinders on will understand this, if you've never gotten into a shouting match over how many exp/hr you got once in a merit party because of your BFS+1 then you know what I speak of
____________________________

Kashius wrote:
Things WoW did not invent:
...
- Fun
#11 Apr 22 2010 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
27 posts
This is an MMO trend, not a FF trend. Min/Maxing is done for a reason - because those of us who care the most want our character to be Optimal. I don't see anything wrong with players who want to figure it all out on their own or try different combinations of 'specs'. But on the flip side, I also don't see anything wrong with groups that have very high standards and set some threshold for an acceptable level of, are you trying hard enough or just being lazy.

I think of it just the same as say a professional sports team. To be "Pro" you have to be the best, the average Joe is not going to make the cut. Of course anyone who is basing it on gear alone is certainly missing a big part of the picture, but it does factor in.
____________________________
FFXI: 75BLM, 75THF, 58NIN, 52WHM, 49WAR, 43 SMN
WoW lvl 80: Shaman, Paladin, Warlock, Rogue, Mage
#12 Apr 22 2010 at 7:04 PM Rating: Decent
Timekill wrote:
This is an MMO trend, not a FF trend. Min/Maxing is done for a reason - because those of us who care the most want our character to be Optimal. I don't see anything wrong with players who want to figure it all out on their own or try different combinations of 'specs'. But on the flip side, I also don't see anything wrong with groups that have very high standards and set some threshold for an acceptable level of, are you trying hard enough or just being lazy.

I think of it just the same as say a professional sports team. To be "Pro" you have to be the best, the average Joe is not going to make the cut. Of course anyone who is basing it on gear alone is certainly missing a big part of the picture, but it does factor in.


I agree, but at the same time I disagree. Or maybe I fully agree and it's just a matter of wording.

There are two sides to the elitism conflict. There are the bad kinds of elitists that create unreasonable expectations of other players for mundane tasks that require neither "optimum" performance nor "optimum" gear/chracter builds. On the other side of the coin are the ego-centric little monkeys who don't give a **** about their contribution to a group as long as they get out of it what they want. And stuck in between those two polar opposites are the people who make an effort to contribute as best they can to a group in all areas as well as the people who just honestly don't know what they could be doing differently to improve their contribution but would happily change things around if they were pointed in the right direction.

I tend to gravitate towards players who share my views on what's entertaining in an MMO. Just because I prefer to play to win and take satisfaction in making a solid contribution to any group I join doesn't give me license to look down my nose at Joe Random because I just happen to know a few things he could do differently that could improve his performance whether it's a matter of gear, character build, or strategy. By the same token, that doesn't mean I want to surround myself with people who are content to launch themselves against a brick wall for hours on end for no other reason than they can't be bothered to learn and implement a better approach.
#13 Apr 22 2010 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
398 posts
Quote:
This is an MMO trend, not a FF trend. Min/Maxing is done for a reason - because those of us who care the most want our character to be Optimal. I don't see anything wrong with players who want to figure it all out on their own or try different combinations of 'specs'. But on the flip side, I also don't see anything wrong with groups that have very high standards and set some threshold for an acceptable level of, are you trying hard enough or just being lazy.

I think of it just the same as say a professional sports team. To be "Pro" you have to be the best, the average Joe is not going to make the cut. Of course anyone who is basing it on gear alone is certainly missing a big part of the picture, but it does factor in.


Why exactly does minmaxing mean you care more? I've met plenty of minmaxers in my time that obviously don't care about playing well with a group, and are all to happy to pretend to be a worthwile group member right up untill they get to steal the loot they want.

Being differant doesn't mean you are a bad player, please remember that your playstyle isn't the only one, and just because I don't want to be just like you doesn't mean I haven't put just as much if not more work into my character.

However this mentality of yours is very endemic of EQ and WoW style games, judging by what we have been told there will be less reason for stuckup elitism to ruin the game for everyone else.


Edit: As an Rper I just don't care about quite the same things as a hardcore raider does, I do however tend to care alot about the groups I am in or with at the time , unless they give me reason not to

Edited, Apr 22nd 2010 9:18pm by zurinadrg
#14 Apr 22 2010 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
240 posts
Going to have to wait and see for this one. I have my eyes set on a healing and ranged attacker class and would hate the idea of sticking to one because you "have" to have max this and the best everything otherwise you're gimp.

Yes, wearing Full AF on near every job at 75 is pretty bad. I had the impression that in FF14 all your skills and stats are from leveling up your weapon and not so much from gear, but then what would be the point of gear anyway other than just for looks?

I'm thinking of how Fallout 3 is where basically while your weapons and armor have a hard cap on Atk and Def, your stats and perks are what really makes your character shine. In FF11 there was far too much emphasis on gear and gear swapping. I personally hope they do away with gear swapping because it's sucks for a limited inventory and healers have a hard time targeting you unless they do it the "other way".

EDIT: blah, how could I miss that typo.



Edited, Apr 22nd 2010 7:15pm by RaideLeonn

Edited, Apr 26th 2010 9:32pm by RaideLeonn
____________________________
Raide < Railock / Hume(M) / "Asura" ***Missing Pandemonium***
80 Dragoon / 80 Black Mage / 80 Blue Mage
#15 Apr 22 2010 at 7:17 PM Rating: Default
zurinadrg wrote:
Quote:
This is an MMO trend, not a FF trend. Min/Maxing is done for a reason - because those of us who care the most want our character to be Optimal. I don't see anything wrong with players who want to figure it all out on their own or try different combinations of 'specs'. But on the flip side, I also don't see anything wrong with groups that have very high standards and set some threshold for an acceptable level of, are you trying hard enough or just being lazy.

I think of it just the same as say a professional sports team. To be "Pro" you have to be the best, the average Joe is not going to make the cut. Of course anyone who is basing it on gear alone is certainly missing a big part of the picture, but it does factor in.


Why exactly does minmaxing mean you care more? I've met plenty of minmaxers in my time that obviously don't care about playing well with a group, and are all to happy to pretend to be a worthwile group member right up untill they get to steal the loot they want.

Being differant doesn't mean you are a bad player, please remember that your playstyle isn't the only one, and just because I don't want to be just like you doesn't mean I haven't put just as much if not more work into my character.

However this mentality of yours is very endemic of EQ and WoW style games, judging by what we have been told there will be less reason for stuckup elitism to ruin the game for everyone else.


You know what exacerbates the elitism conflict as much as (if not more than) anything else? Generalizations.

Their are min/maxers and people who get labeled as elitist because they're interested primarily in results. I don't care if you've but 500 days of total playtime into a character if the way you've set up that character means you can't contribute on par with what would enable a group to succeed in challenging content. The question that is often overlooked by people denouncing the generalized use of the term "elitist" seem to be reluctant to ask themselves is, "If everyone in this group was contributing on par with what I'm doing relative to their role, would this group be able to succeed?" If the objective answer is yes, you're golden. If the fully objective answer is no and you still feel justified in pointing the naughty finger at other people for their criticism of your desire to be a unique snowflake, the problem is with you, not them.
#16 Apr 22 2010 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
398 posts
Well since I've never had a complaint in any game I've played yet other than my complete contempt for mods... I did get into a raid group in WoW and was not kicked out.

There is a differance between playing an interesting character and being stupid, yes I'll admit that, but I have never desired to play with people who can't see past the stats.
#17 Apr 22 2010 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
zurinadrg wrote:
Well since I've never had a complaint in any game I've played yet other than my complete contempt for mods... I did get into a raid group in WoW and was not kicked out.

There is a differance between playing an interesting character and being stupid, yes I'll admit that, but I have never desired to play with people who can't see past the stats.


For some people, it's not about not being able to see past the stats. It's about not being able to see past the mountain of player corpses strewn in front of you after a wipe. There are generally two kinds of elitism...the kind fueled by the desire of insecure/immature little nublets to feed their egos, and the kind fueled by the desire of certain kinds of players to be successful in a team endeavor. The people who set high standards for performance and character builds get labeled elitists, but high standards in of themselves are not the issue. The issue is around who is expected to live up to those standards.
#18 Apr 22 2010 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
LestatXIV wrote:
One of the main issues in XI was the lack of diversity in gear. There simply wasn't enough gear per Tier, not even close. XIV needs to greatly expand on the amount of gear available to help end the issue stated here. No one should be vilified just because they don't have that one elite piece of gear that take's hours and hours on end to earn or millions upon millions of gil.
They definitely got better about that over the past couple of years with salvage/nyz/add-ons/campaign (mostly r/e) gear. 90% of cost and cost and "elitism" is in player's heads (both the elitists and those who feel persecuted), though. Some gear is priced because of rarity and some because of perceived worth, but as long as a player is making an effort to improve and knows what they're doing I've never seen someone turned away.
Quote:
Why exactly does minmaxing mean you care more? I've met plenty of minmaxers in my time that obviously don't care about playing well with a group,
If they're not playing well with the group chances are they aren't a good min-maxer. The goal is to maximize the output of the group, and the best way to do that is to hold yourself and others to a high standard while helping new members get to that point as soon as possible.
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#19 Apr 23 2010 at 7:04 AM Rating: Good
*
107 posts
From what I've seen with the brief skill and ability lists of the classes SE has shown us, in the more "hardcore" groups there will need to be more communication. Many of the jobs seem to be very versatile. With the flexibility of these jobs, it will take many of the players who like cookie cutter builds to settle on what gear works best for what role a particular job.

Even after the gears are decided on, there's the additional customization of adding skills and abilities from other jobs. I think it's going to be much harder in XIV for the jobs to be pigeon holed into "Your job is Gladiator. You are a tank. You need to have 'xyz' equipped to do your job the best."

Also, with the flexible party sizes, I'm thinking the gear that one equips (outside of the main weapon) will have less impact of how elitists view other players. Maybe.
____________________________
FFXI Hazero, Elvan PLD, retiered.
CoV, King Ghidora, Dominator retired
AoC, Mecha Ghidora, Dark Templar retired
Tabula Rasa, Super King, Grenadier retired
SWG, Hazero Ghidora, retired
DCUO, Crushlordian Earth Tank Retired
#20 Apr 23 2010 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
539 posts
I think it all came down to attitude and ability in FFXI honestly. I've partied and done events with some of the most expensively geared characters you could imagine, and they weren't worth their weigh gil. If you come to my merit party as a whm in a blessed tunic, I might think "ah crap, how is this going to play out" and then turn around and heal your little **** of and supplement your mp with fruit drinks (or whatever) then good on you, I stand corrected. In my experience, if you show up with lack-luster gear, but know your stuff and preform exceptionally, people won't give you a hard time. ****, they might even offer you the chance to get some better gear.

With the skill customization in FFXIV this might be a moot point as gladiator A shoved all his skill points in something like intelligence and gladiator B distributed it through dex, str or whatever beefy men need to smash stuff efficiently. How are we, as players, supposed to know what kind of skill sets these people have? Our interactions might be based more on initiating conversations and finding out about player ability than judging by afar what their gear says about them.

In short, I wouldn't worry about this as much just yet.
____________________________


#21 Apr 23 2010 at 7:57 AM Rating: Default
***
1,446 posts
You could feed a herd of cows for a month with all the strawmen from this argument.
____________________________
Kyansaroo - Kujata
Windurst Rank 10
Tarutaru
BLM 75 / WHM 75 / BST 75 / RDM 75 / BRD 75
Next to 75: COR 47 / SCH 58
RotZ: Complete
CoP: Complete
ToAU: In-Progress
WoTG: In-Progress
#22 Apr 23 2010 at 9:03 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
55 posts
iBlame people.
____________________________
FFXIV Unofficial Piano Collection @ http://www.youtube.com/user/xjustamem0ryx#grid/user/30BC13EC34F8FC44
#23 Apr 23 2010 at 9:22 AM Rating: Decent
Plays better than you
*****
11,852 posts

The way I see it, there are two categories of players (in this respect):

1. Players that play to be "good" at the game, aiming to down bosses and maximize their effectiveness in the online world

2. Players that play to be social, preferring to follow their own individual desires with little care about how "effective" it might be.

There is some overlap. However, it's natural that players in category 1 will want to fill their guild/LS with other players like them. If you prefer to be an "individual" and do your own thing, you probably wouldn't want to join that kind of guild/LS anyway. From my experience, people who fall primarily into the second category aren't loot-hungry. They just want to enjoy the game in whatever way they feel like enjoying the game at that particular time. They do well if they make guilds full of players just like them.

____________________________
Trubbles Stormborn - 25 ARC / 22 CNJ ... 18 FSH / 14 CUL

#24 Apr 23 2010 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
398 posts
Quote:
The way I see it, there are two categories of players (in this respect):

1. Players that play to be "good" at the game, aiming to down bosses and maximize their effectiveness in the online world

2. Players that play to be social, preferring to follow their own individual desires with little care about how "effective" it might be.

There is some overlap. However, it's natural that players in category 1 will want to fill their guild/LS with other players like them. If you prefer to be an "individual" and do your own thing, you probably wouldn't want to join that kind of guild/LS anyway. From my experience, people who fall primarily into the second category aren't loot-hungry. They just want to enjoy the game in whatever way they feel like enjoying the game at that particular time. They do well if they make guilds full of players just like them.


Thank you Jordster, my probolem comes in when type 1 players start insisting that anyone who isn't a pure type 1 player is a bad player.
From my experiance most type 2 players are interested in group play enough that they will not do something silly like takeing all caster stats if they are a melee charater.
We may not keep all the charts and walkthroughs onhand but that doesn't mean we are't playing the game as well as some others, we just have a differant idea of what makes the game worth playing.
#25 Apr 23 2010 at 2:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
472 posts
EndlessJourney wrote:
I've yet to see one post shunning anyone for anything FFXIV mechanics related so far since only a select few are even in Alpha, and still trying to figure it out. I think it's still way early for anyone to say anything about cookie cutting or the way to properly form one thing or another. Where the **** are you getting this idea from?


There have been many posts about how the expected diversity is going to create a strict model to follow or you will be considered a gimp and the need for an easy way to readjust skill points after they are chosen. I am not going to go back and find them for you. I think you missed my point entirely it has nothing to do with FFXIV mechanics. It has everything to do with mmorpg mentality. If you needed a rdm or tank or whatever in FFXI you usually just grabbed whomever was available if none of your regulars were online and if they didn't have the best gear it never realy was a big deal. WoW forget about never once did gear even come up in any of my groupings. Couple points in INT instead of STR for a Maruader because he likes to play a mage also isn't gonna have a big affect and it probably won't be noticeable. POINT - I like the diversity, I don't want easy respecs, its not as big a deal as some people are making it (you missed these though maybe someone will quote some up on here I am too lazy). I think some people were exaggerating the FFXI attitude a bit.
____________________________
Foo Mania/Istory
FooFighter/Quetzalcoatl retired
#26 Apr 24 2010 at 9:11 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
133 posts
Jordster wrote:

The way I see it, there are two categories of players (in this respect):

1. Players that play to be "good" at the game, aiming to down bosses and maximize their effectiveness in the online world

2. Players that play to be social, preferring to follow their own individual desires with little care about how "effective" it might be.

There is some overlap. However, it's natural that players in category 1 will want to fill their guild/LS with other players like them. If you prefer to be an "individual" and do your own thing, you probably wouldn't want to join that kind of guild/LS anyway. From my experience, people who fall primarily into the second category aren't loot-hungry. They just want to enjoy the game in whatever way they feel like enjoying the game at that particular time. They do well if they make guilds full of players just like them.


That's such a gross over simplification. Especially since you missed one very large chunk of the community, people who want to be good and play the game to its fullest potential but can not justify sacrificing the time it takes, or basically just people with time constraints.

Those people, myself included, are the main reason I'm so interested in this issue and the issue of gil. Not being able to attain a certain item or amount of gil could be a physical barrier between you and your goals in XI. So now with my already limited gameplay time I have to spend large chunks of it trying to farm gil to buy a severely overpriced piece of gear SIMPLY because it's the only piece of gear in that lvl range which offers those stat benefits. It's a dual issue, both ends of which need to be addressed.
____________________________
Now Go,
Stand up to a giant!
Said that I'm a fighter.
Too drunk to remember.
Too drunk to..
#27 Apr 24 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
Plays better than you
*****
11,852 posts

How would you suggest they fix it?

They need some super-fancy carrots to dangle in front of the hardcore crowd, or they'll get bored.

Personally, I also fall into the "average" category - I want to play the game, and play it well, but I also have a full time job and RL responsibilities. I also can not justify dubious amounts of time to be "uber."

The way I see it, I will just find an LS/guild full of players similar to myself. I don't expect the bleeding edge players to welcome my poor stats with open arms, and at the same time I don't have the patience to group up with people who treat an MMORPG as a glorified chat room.

I mean, I don't have enough time to hone my baseball skills to a pro level, and I don't copmlain that the Toronto Blue Jays won't let me play with them ... But at the same time I have no interest in playing in 9-12 year old little league.
____________________________
Trubbles Stormborn - 25 ARC / 22 CNJ ... 18 FSH / 14 CUL

#28 Apr 25 2010 at 12:24 PM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
What's the point of this thread? I mean, I understand what you're getting at, but I just haven't ever encountered the attitude you're talking about. Perhaps its your attitude that's a tad off.

Look at it this way. A linkshell that wants to be the best of the best only takes people on their level. They decline you because you have not dedicated as much time as they have into your character, or because they don't think you'll be a good addition. It's completely reasonable (as well as fair to them.) for people to not want to have to carry others through content, and those who complain about not being accepted into these groups when they have sub-par gear always makes me laugh.

There's no shortage of linkshells/guilds that you can work your way up in. You're exaggerating with this thread. It's not hard to gear up in XI nor in WoW as long as you're not trying to grab onto someone to carry you, and it never has been.
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#29 Apr 25 2010 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
**
562 posts
Quote:
Those people, myself included, are the main reason I'm so interested in this issue and the issue of gil. Not being able to attain a certain item or amount of gil could be a physical barrier between you and your goals in XI. So now with my already limited gameplay time I have to spend large chunks of it trying to farm gil to buy a severely overpriced piece of gear SIMPLY because it's the only piece of gear in that lvl range which offers those stat benefits. It's a dual issue, both ends of which need to be addressed.


I seem to fall into your category of player. I set high standards for myself but lack the time to play as much as I'd really like. Of course, any semi-addicted player wants to play more, I'm just saying that my playtime is limited to late nights when my kids are sleeping. Anyway.... In the playtime that I do have I like to get as much done as possible. I would toss my flag up to seek while I did some random quests for rep, I would farm while I waited for JP midnight ( something I truly hope we don't have to deal with again!) and when I got into a party, I wanted to do my best to ensure that we did good so that we all wanted to stay & continue together cause we're working so well.

I don't know what label that gives me as a type of player. I've never turned someone away from a party because of the gear they had on. I've always tried my best to have gear that worked well for my jobs. If I couldn't get "the best" at my level for one reason or another I was never turned away. And since I'm rambling on, I'm just gonna end my post....
____________________________
The more I train, the harder I get. The harder I get, the more lethal I am. The more lethal I am, the fewer opponents. The fewer opponents, the less to lose. The less to lose, the more I let up. The more I let up, the more room for mistakes. The more room for mistakes, the more I train.

#30 Apr 26 2010 at 12:20 AM Rating: Good
Humans being humans... Here's the secret: It's all self-imposed.

Why do people try and keep up with the Jones Family? If your neighbor gets the best lawn mower money can buy your dumpy old yard sale mower is now weak sauce. When a friend unlocks his Aegis Shield your Hagun feels like a wooden sword. We all feel the itch to keep up, it's only natural. Any feeling that we need to have the "best" is self-imposed.

If a linkshell or party discriminates on the basis of gear, then it's obvious isn't it? Those people naturally want to reinforce their sense of superiority or circumvent the challenges of the game. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar -- how do we know? Because the game is designed and proven to be beaten with NQ gear. The rich and powerful, both in the game and out, will always pretend that you can only become a member of the club through hard work and dedication. The groups that understand how skill is always greater than gear, could care less whether or not you are "properly" equipped.
#31 Apr 26 2010 at 12:44 AM Rating: Good
**
437 posts
The problem is most of these so-called premium players are little more than people who look up what the "best thing" is from other websites and read "how to" strategies to beat certain bosses. Few of them are the people who actually do the hard work themselves, yet they still call think themselves better. It has nothing to do with skill. Just gear and them going and copying someone else who has figured it out for them. *shrug*
____________________________
行く河の流れは絶えずしてしかも元の水にあらず。よどみに浮かぶ泡沫はかつ消えかつ結びて久しくとどまりたる例なし世の中にある人と住みかも全くのごとき。 -方丈記
#32 Apr 26 2010 at 1:41 AM Rating: Default
shinichoco wrote:
The problem is most of these so-called premium players are little more than people who look up what the "best thing" is from other websites and read "how to" strategies to beat certain bosses. Few of them are the people who actually do the hard work themselves, yet they still call think themselves better. It has nothing to do with skill. Just gear and them going and copying someone else who has figured it out for them. *shrug*


In many ways, you're right. There are very few people who are actually on the bleeding edge of progression in any MMO such that they're tackling encounters before anyone has even had an opportunity to post in a wiki about them with reliable information. There are very few people interested in doing the thorough testing required to produce accurate theorycrafting numbers. In the end, it's still about results. For every person who reads up on what stats they can/should focus on to enable them to accomplish what is required of them with "best" results, there are several who rely on guesswork and/or information provided to them in-game by friends, LS/guildmates, and overbearing elitist types that puke out "optimum" values for this and that just to try to make themselves sound important.

I guess my concern is that I don't like being tarred with the "naughty elitist" brush because I prefer to play the game a certain way any more than someone else might appreciate getting labeled a scrub because they just log in to play and don't care about optimum. I know that most (if not all) of the people in this thread recognize the difference between the nasty elitism that's just an extension of insecure uberdorks and people who enjoy succeeding at a higher level of play than the status quo. I guess I'd liken it to someone who works extremely hard to build their own business and starts to enjoy the fruits of their labors only to have someone who is less well-off in the financial end of things lambast them for being a greedy capitalist pig because they equate financial success to unscrupulous behavior.
#33 Apr 26 2010 at 5:58 AM Rating: Decent
Players don't have to be hardcore elitists to behave like them. I'm struck by how many variations there are of the types of players who seek to optimize, min/max or cap their toons. The distinction between the elitists, and the the "I just want to do my best" guys, is a very delicate one. Not that it isn't relevant, because I definitely see the point. I just don't see how the motives matter when the results are the same. We can choose to be inclusive or exclusive regardless of gear and obviously regardless of skill.
#34The One and Only Aurelius, Posted: Apr 26 2010 at 8:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Being inclusive is neat...until you can't get anything done because you've included too many people who aren't able to perform at the level required. Sometimes it comes down to something as basic as not being able to follow simple instructions. The term "be able to not stand in the fire" is growing to become an almost standardized expression. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to gravitate towards groups that operate at roughy your own level of skill and understanding of the game. Where it becomes wrong is when the departure from one group of questionable ability is punctuated with insults and douchebaggery. On the opposite side of the coin, in the absense of that douchebaggery it's just as wrong to label the person moving on as somehow lacking because the underachievers take it as a hit to their ego.
#35 Apr 26 2010 at 4:16 PM Rating: Decent
True on all counts. However, the op is about gear, not skill. Where I think I diverge from your point, true as it is, is where people equate gear with skill. But again, if we're talking about skill then I'm with ya. Where I get confused is how a linkshell or party dismisses good, highly skilled players on account of their n00bish gear. That is all.
#36 Apr 26 2010 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
**
562 posts
Quote:
True on all counts. However, the op is about gear, not skill. Where I think I diverge from your point, true as it is, is where people equate gear with skill. But again, if we're talking about skill then I'm with ya. Where I get confused is how a linkshell or party dismisses good, highly skilled players on account of their n00bish gear. That is all.


I'll put the quarter in to get the ride started this time....

Your question is a simple one. The jerk side of the elite fence feels that if you truly had skill then you would have the best gear. It's a vicious circle.

____________________________
The more I train, the harder I get. The harder I get, the more lethal I am. The more lethal I am, the fewer opponents. The fewer opponents, the less to lose. The less to lose, the more I let up. The more I let up, the more room for mistakes. The more room for mistakes, the more I train.

#37 Apr 26 2010 at 5:17 PM Rating: Default
ReiThor wrote:
Quote:
True on all counts. However, the op is about gear, not skill. Where I think I diverge from your point, true as it is, is where people equate gear with skill. But again, if we're talking about skill then I'm with ya. Where I get confused is how a linkshell or party dismisses good, highly skilled players on account of their n00bish gear. That is all.


I'll put the quarter in to get the ride started this time....

Your question is a simple one. The jerk side of the elite fence feels that if you truly had skill then you would have the best gear. It's a vicious circle.



A good guild/LS won't exclude or dismiss people based on gear. The idea is that if the skill is there, the gear will follow. If the skill isn't there the gear won't be, either. But the players in that same guild/LS will be smeared to **** and back as elitist pricks should they ever have the audacity to let someone go because they're just not playing to the required standards. It just furthers the notion that if someone is harping on you because of your gear, the problem is theirs, not yours.
#38 Apr 26 2010 at 8:51 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Players of MMOs aren't that different from players of any other sporting event (except that a lot of them probably have little experience with sports :P ).

You have people who are very goal-driven and take the game arguably too seriously, and then you have the people who are there to have fun and don't take it as seriously. When on the same team, these people tend to not get along because they have conflicting goals. Then you also have people from both groups who are very skilled, and people who are not (though unskilled goal-driven people tend to fool themselves readily). XI employs horrible mechanics in this regard because goal-achievement is vastly more of a function of dedication than skill anyway (but that's arguably what draws unskilled players to it... the ability to compensate for a lack of skill).

There are plenty of people in pro sports who aren't that competitive-- they're just good. There are also plenty of people who aren't as good as they would like everyone to believe. The trick is that highly goal-driven people don't want to play with fun-driven people, and fun-driven people don't want to be excluded from play or play with people who harass them for their performance.

The pie in the sky solution here for everyone to do their best, be goal-driven if you absolutely must, but keep it in perspective. Even goal-driven people are -attempting- to have fun (though they tend to fail somewhat. Setting goals to achieve fun is generally a red herring versus the goal of having fun), but they should ideally learn how to have fun even when they're not making the most satisfactory progress towards their goals. When they don't, at the very least their own fun suffers, and often the fun of the more "casual" (not unskilled) players as well.

Personally I just don't plan to party with people who impose performance expectations on others (like it's a social expectation, rather than a team effort), even if I have to party with ****** players. Don't care if the party lives and dies by you. If you depend on people meeting a certain level of performance to have fun-- later. I depend on people not being needy and self-absorbed to have fun, so that'll just be where we differ. And I'll have more fun than you. But hey, maybe your character could beat my character in a fight, which is always an impressive achievement on the playground.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#39 Apr 27 2010 at 6:05 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
Kachi wrote:
The trick is that highly goal-driven people don't want to play with fun-driven people, and fun-driven people don't want to be excluded from play or play with people who harass them for their performance.


You're making the assertion that "fun" and "lacking direction" are the same thing, which is false. "Fun" is subjective, so it can't be directly attributed to one thing or the other.

The issue here is between having direction vs. lacking it. In this case, you'd be right: people who have clear-set goals in mind generally don't want to play with people who lack them, which is fine. At the same time, people with no direction don't want to be excluded or harassed for not having goals, which is also fine. Ultimately though, only one of these sides is going to be successful in high-end endgame content; guess which one, and plan accordingly.

Quote:
The pie in the sky solution here for everyone to do their best, be goal-driven if you absolutely must, but keep it in perspective. Even goal-driven people are -attempting- to have fun (though they tend to fail somewhat. Setting goals to achieve fun is generally a red herring versus the goal of having fun), but they should ideally learn how to have fun even when they're not making the most satisfactory progress towards their goals. When they don't, at the very least their own fun suffers, and often the fun of the more "casual" (not unskilled) players as well.


You're equating "casual" with "lacking direction" as well, which is also a false assertion. "Casual" simply means that you've less time to spend playing; it doesn't imply that you're not hardcore enough.

I'll agree that people's fun can be diminished by focusing too hard on the goals, but I wouldn't call it a red herring. If anything, the red herring is the assumption that "fun" and "goals" are mutually exclusive things.

Quote:
Personally I just don't plan to party with people who impose performance expectations on others (like it's a social expectation, rather than a team effort), even if I have to party with sh*tty players. Don't care if the party lives and dies by you. If you depend on people meeting a certain level of performance to have fun-- later. I depend on people not being needy and self-absorbed to have fun, so that'll just be where we differ. And I'll have more fun than you. But hey, maybe your character could beat my character in a fight, which is always an impressive achievement on the playground.


There's two sides to this: on the one side, you have people that are trying to achieve goals as a group, and on the other you have people who are just trying to accomplish their own goals and don't care about the group as a whole. You seem to be leaning in the latter direction, which is fine. Just don't assume that the other side is being greedy or self-absorbed because they aren't adapting the group to meet the needs of the one outsider; if anything, having that expectation makes the outsider the greedy or self-absorbed one. Don't assume you'll have more fun, either; the path you're planning on treading sounds lonely, after all.
____________________________
WoW - Andorhal
Darkkiwi - 85 Gnome Unholy Death Knight - <Flaming Bunnies>
Lightkiwi - 72 Gnome Disc Priest - <Flaming Bunnies>
Kwanita - 82 Gnome Frost Mage - <Flaming Bunnies>
Maglyn - 81 Gnome Protection Warrior - <Flaming Bunnies>


Don't play that game anymore. :P
#40 Apr 27 2010 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You're making the assertion that "fun" and "lacking direction" are the same thing, which is false. "Fun" is subjective, so it can't be directly attributed to one thing or the other.

The issue here is between having direction vs. lacking it. In this case, you'd be right: people who have clear-set goals in mind generally don't want to play with people who lack them, which is fine. At the same time, people with no direction don't want to be excluded or harassed for not having goals, which is also fine. Ultimately though, only one of these sides is going to be successful in high-end endgame content; guess which one, and plan accordingly.


I'm not making that assertion at all. Fun-driven players have goals and direction, but it's just not as performance-oriented. And fun is not as subjective as you would think.

Quote:
You're equating "casual" with "lacking direction" as well, which is also a false assertion. "Casual" simply means that you've less time to spend playing; it doesn't imply that you're not hardcore enough.

I'll agree that people's fun can be diminished by focusing too hard on the goals, but I wouldn't call it a red herring. If anything, the red herring is the assumption that "fun" and "goals" are mutually exclusive things.


I'm not doing that either. We'll just have to disagree about what casual means because I'm not going to argue semantics. I think most people would consider casual and hardcore to be opposites on the same spectrum that defines how serious you are about the game. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how much time you spend playing.

If you thought I said that fun and goals are mutually exclusive things, then you just didn't read. I think I said very explicitly that that isn't the case.

Quote:

There's two sides to this: on the one side, you have people that are trying to achieve goals as a group, and on the other you have people who are just trying to accomplish their own goals and don't care about the group as a whole. You seem to be leaning in the latter direction, which is fine. Just don't assume that the other side is being greedy or self-absorbed because they aren't adapting the group to meet the needs of the one outsider; if anything, having that expectation makes the outsider the greedy or self-absorbed one. Don't assume you'll have more fun, either; the path you're planning on treading sounds lonely, after all.


Uhhh... not really. You seem to be completely missing my point. I care about the group having fun, in spite of xp/hour. You can be guaranteed that I'll be the best player in 99% of my groups, though. That you think I'm making an assumption that I'll have more fun is ridiculous. Tis fact. I almost always have more fun than other people because I have an outlook on life that is more conducive to it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#41The One and Only Aurelius, Posted: Apr 27 2010 at 9:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think that for the general context of the discussion, it might be worthwhile to expand the thinking beyond FFXI-style xp grind parties. Those bred elitism because there was no explicit goal beyond "get xp". When I think of how the term elitism applies, I generally tend to think more in terms of content involve an explicit goal, ie "kill this thing before it kills you." In that sense, there are a lot of players who are only going to find failure entertaining for so long. After a point, people will start to look around and question why the group is still failing. That's usually the point where you can start to seperate the wheat from the chaff, as it were, because the conclusions people draw are what usually create the conflict.
#42 Apr 27 2010 at 10:35 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Nobody wants to lose, and yes, XI made you feel like you were losing if you weren't getting good xp/hour, which centers around bad design. Hopefully that will be addressed and those issues won't arise again. However, I was personally speaking more broadly than that. I understand that people don't want to lose, and that it's often an easy enough matter to analyze a party's performance and isolate an individual who was at fault or didn't pull their own weight. However, I don't now and never have wanted to be a part of any group that made others feel like they were expected to bring a certain level of performance.

It's not like I'm going to party with people who are intentionally being total leeches or anything, but if someone sucks because they aren't getting it or because they want to be a buttersheep, then so long as I enjoy their company, they're welcome in my party.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#43The One and Only Aurelius, Posted: Apr 27 2010 at 10:37 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) But what if they're intentionally being total leeches because that's the best way they can think of to have fun? By your argument, your decision to not group with them would be a measure of elitism.
#44 Apr 27 2010 at 10:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I'm not making any comments about elitism. I'm just saying that there's a difference between taking advantage of your party by afking or not paying attention so that you can progress with minimal effort, and just not being very good at what you do.

I'm not a psychic, but I trust that I have reasonably good judgment about those things. And if I'm wrong, I guess I'll owe someone an apology.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#45 Apr 27 2010 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
Kachi wrote:
I'm not making any comments about elitism. I'm just saying that there's a difference between taking advantage of your party by afking or not paying attention so that you can progress with minimal effort, and just not being very good at what you do.

I'm not a psychic, but I trust that I have reasonably good judgment about those things. And if I'm wrong, I guess I'll owe someone an apology.


I think you're defining your own grey areas and trying to set yourself apart from poeple that you're not really all that different from. The bottom line is that for reasons of your own, you have people that you prefer not to party with. I don't buy into the idea that you have an entitlement to make that distinction while simultaneously being critical of others for doing basically the same thing.
#46 Apr 27 2010 at 11:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I think it's fairly black and white. You're either the kind of person who gets ***** when other people don't conform to your performance expectations, or you're not. Maybe a gray area for people who think it but keep their mouths shut, or talk **** about players behind their backs? In which case I guess I reserve the right to judge the situation case by case.

I think if you applied your argument to a number of other situations, people would be quick to point out the moral relativism you were equivocating. e.g., a murderer killing people who put murderers to death because they're murderers is not the same as putting a murderer to death. You can draw parallels and label it hypocrisy, but most people don't find the two equally principled.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#47 Apr 28 2010 at 5:53 AM Rating: Default
*
57 posts
Quote:
I think if you applied your argument to a number of other situations, people would be quick to point out the moral relativism you were equivocating. e.g., a murderer killing people who put murderers to death because they're murderers is not the same as putting a murderer to death. You can draw parallels and label it hypocrisy, but most people don't find the two equally principled.


Just because something is socially acceptable does not inherently make it more right than something that isn't. So many people get stuck in thinking that their lies, their hypocrisy, their ways of abusing others, their whatever are somehow less wrong than the way others lie, abuse, etc... And it's not different. If someone tells you that you made them feel bad, excluded, misjudged (whatever) then it's wise to accept that result and face those facts rather than try to invalidate their experience.

What works is for people to aim for mutual satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with wanting to exclude someone from your party regardless of your reasons. You have every right to play with whoever you want. It is what it is. There is no need to defend, or explain yourself. I think more unpleasant things happen in games and in life when people force themselves to tolerate or hang around others who make them miserable or resentful. This is especially true in linkshells where people tolerate abusive members, incompetent leadership, or other unpleasant things out of loyalty, but then one day get sick of it all and drama breaks lose.

My take on this is, more people should set boundaries on who they will and will not group with, not less. By doing this we accelerate the growth of everyone involved.

IMO, the groups who know what they want and stick to that are doing it right. The ones who put their own thoughts and feelings aside for the sake of getting to be the "nice" person is slowing the growth process down for the person who is not meeting their expectations.

So be yourself, be honest, and then deal with the consequences.
#48The One and Only Aurelius, Posted: Apr 28 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Who said anything about getting ****** You prefer to not group with people who don't contribute. I'm the same way. It appears that the only difference is the scale against which someone is compared to determine whether or not they're contributing.
#49 Apr 28 2010 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
**
562 posts
I think we've all run into both sides of the fence on FFXI. We've had those players who seem to go AFK after each fight, or worse during the fight, they do more typing than fighting, and generally leech off xp from the party.
On the other hand we've run into the party leader who has to tell everyone what to do and how to do it, and feels the need to call you out if you did something they didn't tell you to do or did something differently than the exact way you have to play. The same ones who tell you what gear you need to be wearing and what sub-job you should be using instead of the one you have now.

Personally I didn't care for either of these (types of) players. I wanted to have a good time AND get some stuff done for my character with my game time. I think I'm a little easier going, I don't mind the silent party where all the text you see are macro lines and skill names with a huge xp per hour ratio. I'm also fully ok with the party that gets less xp but you have a good time cause you all get along and can chat to each other.
Basically as long as I'm not bored then I can roll with it. Yes it's a game, so having fun is MY priority, but I can understand that what I find fun may not be fun to others.
____________________________
The more I train, the harder I get. The harder I get, the more lethal I am. The more lethal I am, the fewer opponents. The fewer opponents, the less to lose. The less to lose, the more I let up. The more I let up, the more room for mistakes. The more room for mistakes, the more I train.

#50 Apr 28 2010 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

Who said anything about getting **************

I did. Actually I said a lot about getting ****** I've pretty explicitly been talking about the kinds of people who get ***** about party members who don't perform up to their standards.

[quote] You prefer to not group with people who don't contribute. I'm the same way. It appears that the only difference is the scale against which someone is compared to determine whether or not they're contributing.


Not really. I prefer not to group with people who intend to not contribute. Beyond that, I'm not concerned with the scale of their actual contribution, no matter how utterly they fail to pull their own weight.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#51 Apr 28 2010 at 5:14 PM Rating: Default
Kachi wrote:
Quote:

Who said anything about getting **************

I did. Actually I said a lot about getting ****** I've pretty explicitly been talking about the kinds of people who get ***** about party members who don't perform up to their standards.


So then we can agree that it's not about having standards but more in how those standards are communicated?

Quote:
[quote] You prefer to not group with people who don't contribute. I'm the same way. It appears that the only difference is the scale against which someone is compared to determine whether or not they're contributing.


Not really. I prefer not to group with people who intend to not contribute. Beyond that, I'm not concerned with the scale of their actual contribution, no matter how utterly they fail to pull their own weight.


Again, you're creating your own scale to measure contribution and denouncing other people for theirs.
« Previous 1 2 3
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 14 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (14)