The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Right...from the guy who has spent his entire time in this thread prancing around on his moral high horse because his standards and subjective assessment of fun are the only ones with any validity.
There's a word
for people like that, isn't there? ****, what could it be
? Ahhhh, it's on the tip of my tongue
Seriously though, on to the discussion:
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.
Yes, it is. If I find hockey to be fun and football to be boring, that's my choice. That's my poison. If you can't get enough football, but can't stand hockey, that's your choice. That's your poison. You can't argue that football is more fun than hockey as fact, because it isn't.
In this case, I find accomplishing goals as a group and being good at what I do to be fun. If you find it more fun to just run around aimlessly and don't give a crap whether you win or lose, then that's your choice. Don't try to make it seem like your way is superior, because it isn't. Neither is mine, for that matter.
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.
True, but you may as well have. You stated that people who are goal-oriented (it should actually be "performance-oriented", since that's what you've been alluding to) are more likely to fail at having fun than people who don't; that having goals is a red herring when it comes to fun. That says to me that having goals is in opposition to having fun.
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.
How is it fact? Do you have psychic powers that let you know how much fun the people around you are having? I don't see how you can make such a claim otherwise.
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.
Then why join the guild? Most guilds are pretty up-front with their performance expectations, so how you could go through the application process, get accepted, and yet completely miss the part where they expect you to perform at a specific level is, quite frankly, mind-boggling.
Quit thinking of exp parties and start thinking about endgame. Nobody is going to give a **** about exp parties other than complete tools who want to be carried.
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.
A distinction needs to be made here. Are you referring to the bads that aren't making any efforts to improve, or the bads that will eventually become good players? Are you referring to the buttersheep that comes to group to fulfill whatever role he was brought in to fill and does it reasonably well, or the buttersheep that tries to fill multiple roles at once and fails miserably at all of them? For me, personally, I'll bring the people who are trying their best, even if their spec is weird, but I'll draw the line at people who just don't give a **** or are totally delusional about what they can accomplish.
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 sh*t about players behind their backs? In which case I guess I reserve the right to judge the situation case by case.
I'd say it's gray. The guy who's not doing too well doesn't necessarily have to meet whatever my expectations of performance are, so long as he's making an effort to get better at the game. Putting in effort is what separates the good players from the bad; if they're not trying to improve themselves, they can **** off and get carried by someone else.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be the one intent on branding me a judgmental hypocrite.
You are, though. As I alluded to at the top of this post, you're a scrub who's trying to tell the rest of us that your brand of fun is better than the next guy's, which is ********* Unless they've done studies as to what's fun and what isn't (and I'd love links in this regard), I have no reason to believe that fun is anything BUT a subjective thing. Psst...this is where you back out of the conversation without proving your point because you're full of ****.