Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Best gear only or need not apply.Follow

#52 Apr 28 2010 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Again, you're creating your own scale to measure contribution and denouncing other people for theirs.


There's no scale. You're either playing the game, or trying to get a PL from people while you do nothing or just enough to not get caught doing nothing.

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


If you're referring to the fact that I can't read minds, then I guess the answer is "yes." Otherwise I don't really distinguish between "politely" telling other people how they need to play up to your standards and being an outright **** about it.

There's nothing especially hypocritical about the mentality, "Live and let live with other people who live and let live, but don't live and let live with people who don't live and let live." It's a very basic and viable tenet of a functioning society/group.

Edited, Apr 28th 2010 4:24pm by Kachi
____________________________
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.
#53 Apr 28 2010 at 5:34 PM Rating: Default
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Again, you're creating your own scale to measure contribution and denouncing other people for theirs.


There's no scale. You're either playing the game, or trying to get a PL from people while you do nothing or just enough to not get caught doing nothing.


There is a scale, you're simply refusing to acknowledge it. You set a goal to have fun. How you define fun is entirely subjective. What you're doing is taking your definition of fun, applying your criteria for what allows you to achieve that goal, and presenting a critical view of other people as though your definition of fun and your criteria are the only ones that matter.

So you're out having fun doing your thing...mundane grinding, challenging levequests...whatever. And all of a sudden you hit a wall. All of a sudden you find yourself wanting to get through a particular levequest because it will allow you to unlock both the Samurai class and male Miqo'te all in one fell swoop! Huzzah! Except...you can't defeat the mob associated with the levelquest (which turns out to be an evil male mi'qote with a katana.) You come here and read about other people clearing the encounter with ease. All over Eorzea you're seeing moustached mi'qote and lalafel with great katanas toddling around. Tell me you're not going to try and find a group with the skill necessary to get the job done. Tell me you're not going to set the bar a little higher in terms of deciding who you're going to bring the next time you decide to take on the eastern man-cat of doom. Or are you honestly going to tell me that you'd go without? "Everyone I know is incapable of performing at the level required to smash kitty's face in, so whatever...I'll just forget about it."

I don't think you would. And I don't think you'd feel guilty about trying to assemble a group that would enable you to achieve your goal. I also don't think it's wrong for people who enjoy the more challenging content of the game to gravitate towards groups that would enable them to succeed in that content.

If all you require in order to have fun is for everyone in your party to be mentally present and push buttons in random sequences because they're trying but they just don't get it, that's fine. If that means you find yourself failing levequest after levequest but the time invested in those failures is fun to you, that's fine too. If you think that entitles you to criticize those who would prefer to bypass all that time spent failing by learning how to play at a level that enables success on a more consistent basis, I think you've created for yourself your own little form of elitism.

No matter how you slice it, however, you're still being a hypocrite.
#54 Apr 28 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
There were aspects of XI that I felt were obstructed to me by the players that I associated with, and I didn't change my friends. I was simply critical of SEs poor game design.

Your insights are all very interestingly incorrect, and let's just suffice it to say that I disagree, but no longer enjoy discussing it with you.
____________________________
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.
#55 Apr 28 2010 at 6:19 PM Rating: Default
Kachi wrote:
There were aspects of XI that I felt were obstructed to me by the players that I associated with, and I didn't change my friends. I was simply critical of SEs poor game design.


I'm curiuos as to what some of those aspects might have been and how it became SE's fault for designing them in such a way.

Quote:
Your insights are all very interestingly incorrect, and let's just suffice it to say that I disagree, but no longer enjoy discussing it with you.


Interesting closing remark. I wonder, though, if you realize just how close it is to, "Your performance in this group was very interestingly inadequate, and let's just suffice it to say that my performance was on par with what was required and I no longer enjoy running this content with you."

Pot and kettle sitting in a tree...

Edited, Apr 28th 2010 5:19pm by Aurelius
#56 Apr 28 2010 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
lol, ok. It's amusing to see your leaps of logic to defend this assertion that I'm being a hypocrite, but also telling of how futile it would be to attempt to convince you otherwise. Nevermind how utterly pointless an endeavor it would be.

I think I've spent enough of my life cataloging the numerous design flaws of FFXI, on this forum no less.
____________________________
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.
#57 Apr 28 2010 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Kachi wrote:
lol, ok. It's amusing to see your leaps of logic to defend this assertion that I'm being a hypocrite, but also telling of how futile it would be to attempt to convince you otherwise. Nevermind how utterly pointless an endeavor it would be.


Ya, I think you're kind of in over your head on this one. It's okay...I'll leave you alone.
#58 Apr 28 2010 at 11:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Condescending to me is the surest way to assure me that I won't miss whatever you have to say.
____________________________
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.
#59The One and Only Aurelius, Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 12:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 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.
#60 Apr 29 2010 at 2:14 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Hardly. I don't think morality even enters into video games. Seems like you're just taking my attitude towards play far too seriously. http://xkcd.com/722/

As for fun, it's partly subjective, but it's also science. Fun and opinions are not some kind of magic. They're rooted in psychology and neurology. Many facets of subjectivity are objective. As someone who studies these things, I do consider my assessments more valid than the average person's. I think being better informed entitles me to that.

I'm not making moral judgments of people though. Stop me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be the one intent on branding me a judgmental hypocrite. I could easily go on the offensive too, but see no benefit to it. ****, short of being amused by it, I see no benefit in defending my positions or reputation on this forum.

Like most things in life, it's not worth not having fun with.
____________________________
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.
#61 Apr 29 2010 at 2:34 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
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:

Kachi wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.




Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 ****.
____________________________
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
#62 Apr 29 2010 at 5:22 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
No, this is where I tl;dr.
____________________________
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.
#63 Apr 29 2010 at 6:03 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
Kachi wrote:
No, this is where I tl;dr.


Same deal.

Still, you brought up the science behind recreation/play/fun, so I'm interested in how you can measure whether Activity A is more fun than Activity B. My attempts to Google for such information aren't turning up anything useful.
____________________________
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
#64 Apr 29 2010 at 7:18 AM Rating: Decent
**
346 posts
Quote:

Quit thinking of exp parties and start thinking about endgame. Nobody is going to give a sh*t about exp parties other than complete tools who want to be carried.


I like XP parties.
XP parties are generally when I get to know other players. Endgame stuff is all well and good but in endgame you have to be on point and there is no time for chat and comradery. It's the lower level XP parties that let players interact and find the people they'll be playing endgame with.

It strikes me as a bit elitist to consider people who enjoy XP parties "complete tools who want to be carried" just because they like chatting with new friends.

But I've no doubt that XIV will have a large community of nonspeaking elites who wouldn't dare tolerate a chatty party member because chatting means you aren't working as hard as you should.
I'm also counting on there being an equally large community of fun loving players who just want to indulge in the world and don't really care if a certain boss took 15 extra minutes to kill since it's just as dead either way.
I'll admit, playing the game and working the game are 2 different ends of the spectrum, but since it is a GAME I'll side with the people who play.



#65 Apr 29 2010 at 7:35 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
597 posts
Elmyrsun wrote:
Quote:
Quit thinking of exp parties and start thinking about endgame. Nobody is going to give a sh*t about exp parties other than complete tools who want to be carried.


I like XP parties.
XP parties are generally when I get to know other players. Endgame stuff is all well and good but in endgame you have to be on point and there is no time for chat and comradery. It's the lower level XP parties that let players interact and find the people they'll be playing endgame with.

It strikes me as a bit elitist to consider people who enjoy XP parties "complete tools who want to be carried" just because they like chatting with new friends.


I disagree. There's plenty of time to chat with people while you're doing raid content; not on a 1:1 basis, mind you, but you can still shoot the **** with people over Ventrilo and the like while you wipe to kill trash or fight the easier bosses in a dungeon. On the harder bosses though, you need to stay focused, and that's usually when chatting stops, at least in my guild.

What I was referring to with the "complete tools" comment were the folks that basically wanted you to overgear the mobs you'd be fighting so that they don't have to work as hard to get their XP. Most decent players won't really give a **** otherwise, so long as the mobs die and the XP flows at a decent rate.
____________________________
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
#66The One and Only Aurelius, Posted: Apr 29 2010 at 8:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Semi-OT: I had a psych professor...very experienced guy. Private practice, contracted to a professional sports team to help give the players an edge in dealing with the mental aspects of recovering from injury and the occasional string of losses, head of his department at the university, that kind of thing. One night as he was getting ready to start a lecture and everyone settled down to listen, all of a sudden we could all hear this shrill voice from down the hall. One of the newer professors had just started her lecture and it was...horrible. Like...srsly...it was crazy that anyone could talk like that and not realize just how abrasive they were being. Our professor nodded his head in the direction of the voice and made a very sagacious comment: "New Ph.D...I can tell every time. It'll be about 5 years before she realizes she doesn't know half of what she thinks she knows. After that, the voice will take care of itself."
#67 Apr 29 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
I'm all for having up-to-date gear, but there is a point at which gear is "good enough." If I was lvl 35 and wanted to join an XP party, I would scrape together every bit of gil I could to grab my lvl 37 gear (or quest it) before lfp.

But the players that I don't like to see are those that expect you to have the +1 or +2 version of everything for every new set of equipment. I don't have all day to waste on earning fake money in a game, so I'm not going to collect the few hundred thousand gil extra to get 2 or 3 stats raised by a point. I may splurge every once in a while to get a better piece or two (my rings were always HQ versions), but that's about as far as I would take it.
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#68 Apr 29 2010 at 1:03 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
597 posts
PLDXavier wrote:
But the players that I don't like to see are those that expect you to have the +1 or +2 version of everything for every new set of equipment. I don't have all day to waste on earning fake money in a game, so I'm not going to collect the few hundred thousand gil extra to get 2 or 3 stats raised by a point. I may splurge every once in a while to get a better piece or two (my rings were always HQ versions), but that's about as far as I would take it.


I'm personally hoping that they do better itemization this time around so that there's multiple options for gear at various levels. I'm also hoping that particular pieces don't last for obscenely long lengths of time. I shouldn't still be wearing level 7 boots in my 30s/40s, or level 34 gloves at the level cap.
____________________________
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
#69 Apr 29 2010 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Same deal.

Still, you brought up the science behind recreation/play/fun, so I'm interested in how you can measure whether Activity A is more fun than Activity B. My attempts to Google for such information aren't turning up anything useful.


I don't know. I'm not too inclined to entertain someone who starts off some diatribe railing against me (though I guess that's an assumption on my part, having not read it) by calling me a scrub (which wasn't even a remotely -accurate- insult, nevermind just rude). But I do find it amusing that you tried to google it. Did you at least use google scholar?

Quote:
If you're going to play the education card in virtually every debate you have here, you're going to maybe want to take a ocurse on how not to be stupid. You can spew your textbook shenanigans all day long...by the time the real world sinks in, you'll realize just how fruitless that approach can be.


See, this is what I'm talking about. How do you honestly expect me to take any of your criticisms seriously when you tell me to take a course on how not to be stupid? First of all, you've clearly an established bias against me, to the point you seem invested in this ridiculous discussion about the importance of one's performance in a video game. But beyond that, do you have any idea just how absurd it is for you, whoever it is you are, to expect me to take your assessments of my intelligence more seriously than the seasoned professors who constantly remark how intelligent I am? Or the people who know me very personally who observe how mature I am decades beyond my years? IQ tests? My history of making good decisions with my life that have led to happiness and success for myself and those I care for?

Don't get me wrong. I'm really not the arrogant type. However, whether by luck or some personal virtue (I ascribe it to luck, personally), if there is anything I am, it's incredibly intelligent.

By the way, textbooks play little role in graduate school, beyond providing an introductory understanding to new material. Textbooks have a hard time keeping current on recent research. They are, afterall, essentially just summaries of research articles anyway. And a PhD isn't for teaching (which is why many professors are awful teachers), but for growing the field of research. Doctoring the Philosophy of the field.
____________________________
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.
#70 Apr 29 2010 at 5:35 PM Rating: Default
Kachi wrote:
See, this is what I'm talking about. How do you honestly expect me to take any of your criticisms seriously when you tell me to take a course on how not to be stupid?


Since you don't seem to understand anything that you can't find in a textbook, I figured that might be your next best option. Life experience -> look into it. You've summarily labeled anyone who plays a video game with specific goals beyond simply "having fun" as being flawed in some way. I'm supposed to take you seriously when you try to tell me that there's something wrong with setting goals wihin a game, working towards them, and exhibiting a preference towards associating with those other players that play at a similar level to me?

Throughout this thread, I've been very careful to try and express my preferences with regards to who I group with in a way that doesn't label anyone else as lacking or somehow less entitled to play on the same server as the "good" players. Then yet you come along, denounce the horrible elitists and tout your own brand of exclusivity in their place, and still have the audacity to say you're not being a hypocrite. Get your nose out of the research papers and textbooks for a while and look around you. Seems to me like you've got too many people blowing smoke up your *** for you to have developed an accurate view of the world. Different from you =/= deficient, abnormal, or flawed. Nor does choosing to associate with people who share a similar aptitutde. I'd rather give players interested in a different approach to the game ample room to do so without sacrificing my entertainment value in the process. That means finding people whose approach is similar to mine and gravitating towards them. That, my ignorant friend, is live and let live. Not holding anyone/everyone to my standards of performance and making them feel bad and/or detracting from my own enjoyment in the process.

Quote:
By the way, textbooks play little role in graduate school, beyond providing an introductory understanding to new material. Textbooks have a hard time keeping current on recent research. They are, afterall, essentially just summaries of research articles anyway. And a PhD isn't for teaching (which is why many professors are awful teachers), but for growing the field of research. Doctoring the Philosophy of the field.


Frankly, with your skewed view of the field and apparent inability to produce objective reasoning, you've got no business in the research or clinical areas of psychology. Get some real world experience dealing with people. In the meantime, I'd be extremely careful about how quickly I fall back on the, "Well...well...I'm a graduate student!!" excuse as a means to bolster an argument.
#71 Apr 29 2010 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You've summarily labeled anyone who plays a video game with specific goals beyond simply "having fun" as being flawed in some way. I'm supposed to take you seriously when you try to tell me that there's something wrong with setting goals wihin a game, working towards them, and exhibiting a preference towards associating with those other players that play at a similar level to me?


All that I've said is that what you just described is no different than an attitude prevalent in many other competitive fields like sports. Is it flawed in some fundamental way? Yes, but not an especially important one. It has nothing to do with my personal views, either.

Quote:
Frankly, with your skewed view of the field and apparent inability to produce objective reasoning, you've got no business in the research or clinical areas of psychology. Get some real world experience dealing with people. In the meantime, I'd be extremely careful about how quickly I fall back on the, "Well...well...I'm a graduate student!!" excuse as a means to bolster an argument.


Frankly, with your unbridled ignorance and total lack of credibility, you've got no business offering me professional advice of any kind. As such, I'll treat your suggestion with the deference it deserves.

Your assertion that I am limited in real world experience is soooo cute. It speaks to how little you know of me, how utterly meritless everything you've said has been, and how sadly desperate this whole ad hominem affair has been.

I mean, you'd think that at the very least you'd have realized what a complete waste of your time this has been (whereas I knew that this discussion would be a waste of time beforehand-- but an amusing waste of time was exactly what I wanted). And I'm sure you feel that's because I'm too obstinate to see just how right you are, but the one who has kept a level and measured head here has not been you. Instead, your visceral reactions are telling of an unbecoming disposition. The truth is, you're not nearly as critical of me as I am myself, and that appears to be a quality that you could stand to refine.

And my being a graduate student has only served to point out that I have the time, resources, and interest to be thoroughly informed on the matter. It's better than talking completely out of my ***, right? Well, I don't know... you seem to think it works well for you.
____________________________
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.
#72 Apr 29 2010 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
You've summarily labeled anyone who plays a video game with specific goals beyond simply "having fun" as being flawed in some way. I'm supposed to take you seriously when you try to tell me that there's something wrong with setting goals wihin a game, working towards them, and exhibiting a preference towards associating with those other players that play at a similar level to me?


All that I've said is that what you just described is no different than an attitude prevalent in many other competitive fields like sports. Is it flawed in some fundamental way? Yes, but not an especially important one. It has nothing to do with my personal views, either.


No, it's not flawed. At all. It's human nature.

Quote:
Frankly, with your unbridled ignorance and total lack of credibility, you've got no business offering me professional advice of any kind. As such, I'll treat your suggestion with the deference it deserves.


You know nothing of my experience, and I'll take my practical experience working with people in a variety of capacities over your narrow view of the world any day. So let's keep making assumptions about each other for a little while longer...I'm sure that'll be swell. Won't change the fact that you're wrong, but if that's what it takes for you to avoid the issue, by all means carry on.

Quote:
Your assertion that I am limited in real world experience is soooo cute. It speaks to how little you know of me, how utterly meritless everything you've said has been, and how sadly desperate this whole ad hominem affair has been.


Hi pot. Meet kettle. Wanna make out?
#73 Apr 29 2010 at 7:50 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Oh, I never said it wasn't completely NORMAL. It's still a flaw. If you needed me to tell you that normal humans have plenty of flaws, I don't think I'm the one with the problematic worldview.

Quote:
Hi pot. Meet kettle. Wanna make out?


The pot/kettle thing wasn't clever the first time, either.

The only assumption I'm making about you is that you have no relevant professional credentials that grant merit to your criticisms. So far you've said nothing that would make me question that, and several things that would support it. You keep talking about your practical experience like it's something we "educated folks" lack. It's a common though completely misguided stereotype.
____________________________
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.
#74 Apr 29 2010 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
**
592 posts
Kachi, the problem is that you are determining whether or not a person's worldview is problematic. You say that you will party with anyone regardless of skill because you just enjoy the socialization aspect of the game. Great, I'm happy for you and that you get your enjoyment from meeting new people. You then go on to say that you contest the viewpoint that anyone would want to party with better then average players to complete a goal, even if that is what they enjoy. Then you say that enjoyment is mostly scientific, but that you have a "mindset" that makes you more likely to enjoy things than other people.

Let's go ahead and run with the scientific card. You must know that whatever makes you more inclined to enjoy an experience does not represent the majority of people out there. However, you then proceed to dictate what should be fun for everyone else, even though they may not share the same biological chemistry that makes the same situation fun for you. If goal oriented players are doing it wrong, how is your social experience oriented mindset more correct? Each person is allowed to enjoy the game in their own fashion. If anybody expects to dictate what is fun, then we will wind up with every player in Eorzea on the same job, with the same professions, with the same gear. That sounds like a hotter **** than the groupthink in FFXI.
____________________________
Inralkil-Seraph 75NIN/75SAM/68BST

Retired: Inra-Dark Crag 40/40 Witch Elf
Retired: Hollow-Thunderlord 70 Warlock S1/S3 T4 SL/SL
Retired: Horknee-Thunderlord 70 Druid T4/T5 Feral
#75 Apr 29 2010 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Kachi, the problem is that you are determining whether or not a person's worldview is problematic. You say that you will party with anyone regardless of skill because you just enjoy the socialization aspect of the game. Great, I'm happy for you and that you get your enjoyment from meeting new people. You then go on to say that you contest the viewpoint that anyone would want to party with better then average players to complete a goal, even if that is what they enjoy. Then you say that enjoyment is mostly scientific, but that you have a "mindset" that makes you more likely to enjoy things than other people.

Let's go ahead and run with the scientific card. You must know that whatever makes you more inclined to enjoy an experience does not represent the majority of people out there. However, you then proceed to dictate what should be fun for everyone else, even though they may not share the same biological chemistry that makes the same situation fun for you. If goal oriented players are doing it wrong, how is your social experience oriented mindset more correct? Each person is allowed to enjoy the game in their own fashion. If anybody expects to dictate what is fun, then we will wind up with every player in Eorzea on the same job, with the same professions, with the same gear. That sounds like a hotter **** than the groupthink in FFXI.


You've incomprehensibly jumbled up the things that I've said throughout this thread... Since you were respectful about it, I'm inclined to go line by line and show you the problems with your reasoning, but that would entail me going line by line...

So hopefully it will suffice to explain that I am not saying how people -should- be having fun. There are ways that people -do- have fun, and the aforementioned mindset is usually not nearly as fun as much as it creates an illusion of fun. In reality it dooms itself to discontentment and frustration, then writes these incidents off as external barriers rather than internal flaws.

It would be pointless for me to dictate how other people should play. It exceeds my capabilities as a person to significantly change the mindsets of the playerbase, particularly if they don't want to change. I'm simply saying what kinds of people I will party with. Some seem to think that's just as elitist as people who are performance-oriented, and I've explained why I don't see it that way.
____________________________
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.
#76 Apr 29 2010 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
**
736 posts
Quote:
There are ways that people -do- have fun, and the aforementioned mindset is usually not nearly as fun as much as it creates an illusion of fun.



If I may derail your thoughts for a minute, Kachi, whose taxonomy of fun are you going by?
Leblanc, Caillois, Brown or something else entirely? I remember you saying a while back you were doing some research on the topic and this sentence makes me kind of wonder what you ended up with.



Edited, Apr 29th 2010 11:41pm by Zemzelette
#77 Apr 29 2010 at 9:57 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
Kachi wrote:
So hopefully it will suffice to explain that I am not saying how people -should- be having fun. There are ways that people -do- have fun, and the aforementioned mindset is usually not nearly as fun as much as it creates an illusion of fun. In reality it dooms itself to discontentment and frustration, then writes these incidents off as external barriers rather than internal flaws.


How do you quantify something like that, though? That's the question here. You've thus far provided no information to prove your hypothesis correct.
____________________________
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
#78 Apr 30 2010 at 1:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
If I may derail your thoughts for a minute, Kachi, whose taxonomy of fun are you going by?
Leblanc, Caillois, Brown or something else entirely? I remember you saying a while back you were doing some research on the topic and this sentence makes me kind of wonder what you ended up with.


Taxonomies are just ways of classifying phenomenon-- not a very useful or essential heuristic for understanding a complex phenomenon like "fun" considering that most macro theories aren't even all-inclusive. That said, if I were to throw my weight behind a single theory, Deci and Ryan's self determination theory is the single most comprehensive and well-supported, so I generally refer to that as my launch point for discussions of enjoyment. It's still very lacking, though.

I admit I had never even heard of Leblanc. Apparently he's a prominent video game designer, but doesn't seem to have any relevance in the field of psychology. From what I could find about his taxonomy on google, he has some interesting ideas about games, but nothing research-based that I would grant much credibility. If you have any good links I'd like to read more, though.

To the extent that it was ever relevant, Caillois is basically obsolete. Brown, I assume you mean Stuart Brown... I haven't read his work. Probably has some interesting insights, but I don't think he's actually conducted any research. Maybe he'd sponsor some of mine though :P I dunno, might look into him more, but he seems to make a case that is already supported by developmental researchers.

Quote:
How do you quantify something like that, though? That's the question here. You've thus far provided no information to prove your hypothesis correct.


Depends on the study in question. Sometimes it's as simple as a self-report Likert scale, other times direct observation and/or measurement of voluntary participation. Lately it's increasingly quantified by neuroimaging and monitoring of the brain's "fun" zones, though that kind of research is relatively scarce now compared to what it will be like in coming decades. This is how the data is acquired to support the basic psychological theories that apply across contexts.

And honestly, clinical observations aside, all I or anyone else need do is observe the reactions of someone at play to see how much they're enjoying themselves. The look on their face is usually all the indication one needs, and the long bouts of visible boredom, irritation, and even anger that are exhibited by highly goal-driven people contrast starkly with their own perceptions of enjoyment.

And let me reiterate that having goals is not the problem, it's prioritizing the attainment of those goals over other factors of immediate enjoyment. It's delaying gratification either a little too much or to a borderline unhealthy extreme. It's becoming highly extrinsically motivated by the game, and starting to accept that you'll be happy AFTER you achieve the goal, while in reality you endure hours of frustration to experience seconds of satisfaction.

It's normal, and all people do it. I do it. The important thing is being aware of the extent to which you do, and understanding that the ideal level is "as little as possible." Of course, that ideal assumes an ideal "world," too. It's adaptive to delay gratification normally because our world requires it for survival, but in the context of something purely recreational, it's antithetical to your goal.
____________________________
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.
#79 Apr 30 2010 at 2:33 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
597 posts
Kachi wrote:
And honestly, clinical observations aside, all I or anyone else need do is observe the reactions of someone at play to see how much they're enjoying themselves. The look on their face is usually all the indication one needs, and the long bouts of visible boredom, irritation, and even anger that are exhibited by highly goal-driven people contrast starkly with their own perceptions of enjoyment.


True. And then there's moments like this that more than make up for it.

Quote:
And let me reiterate that having goals is not the problem, it's prioritizing the attainment of those goals over other factors of immediate enjoyment. It's delaying gratification either a little too much or to a borderline unhealthy extreme. It's becoming highly extrinsically motivated by the game, and starting to accept that you'll be happy AFTER you achieve the goal, while in reality you endure hours of frustration to experience seconds of satisfaction.


Those seconds are some of the most awesome moments ever, though. The fanfares that erupt whenever my guild downs a difficult encounter for the first time are arguably the best times I've had playing WoW, and I'm sure others here can attest to that sort of thing. It's only made better by the anticipation that you're getting closer and closer to your desired goal as each wipe happens at later and later points in the fight. The only thing that ruins it is a string of bad luck where you actually lose progress, which happens more often than I would like, but not enough that I would re-evaluate what I find fun about the game.
____________________________
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
#80 Apr 30 2010 at 7:28 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
Just to go back to the OT a bit.

So where do we draw the line between in-game and real life? If you (the general form, not directed to anyone in particular) only play with people that only buy the mutli-million gil gear and the +2 variant of everything, how do you feel about people that just RMT the gil for all that crap and never work a second for it? Or how do you feel about people that have top-notch equipment, but experience a bit of occasional lag (perhaps a few times per hour) because their hardware isn't top-notch or they're playing on something like a 384kbps connection?

Is the ultimate gamer the one that has the real life money to buy the fastest PC, buy the fastest internet connection, sit around all day and do nothing but play the MMO, and RMT all the best gear in the game? If so, where do we working class slobs with jobs, families, and real life responsibilities stand?
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#81 Apr 30 2010 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
**
736 posts
#82 Apr 30 2010 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
Quanta wrote:
PLDXavier wrote:
But the players that I don't like to see are those that expect you to have the +1 or +2 version of everything for every new set of equipment. I don't have all day to waste on earning fake money in a game, so I'm not going to collect the few hundred thousand gil extra to get 2 or 3 stats raised by a point. I may splurge every once in a while to get a better piece or two (my rings were always HQ versions), but that's about as far as I would take it.


I'm personally hoping that they do better itemization this time around so that there's multiple options for gear at various levels. I'm also hoping that particular pieces don't last for obscenely long lengths of time. I shouldn't still be wearing level 7 boots in my 30s/40s, or level 34 gloves at the level cap.
This. Problem with FFXI, the standard gear was utter crap compared to the rare/ex/+1 gear. Just look at most of the armor early on in the game. Majority of it had no beneficial stats whatsoever other than DEF.

The gap between average gear and great gear was way too large therefore players saw a significant difference in performance to the point no one wanted people with mere "average" gear anymore. I'm not talking about end game gear here either. There SHOULD be a bigger difference between harder to get endgame stuff compared to easier obtainable stuff but there shouldn't be a requirement to already have endgame level stuff to even have the ability to do it. It's the chicken and the egg scenario.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#83 Apr 30 2010 at 11:39 AM Rating: Decent
*
132 posts
(物以类聚)

1.Things of one kind come together.
2.Like attracts like.
3.Birds of a feather flock together.

Problem solved, argument is over lol.

So did we not just classify a few groups of players throughout this entire thread?

So we have the following (plug in your own groups if you wish):

1. Elites (Best of the best, of the best... of the best.)
2. Average Joe (Just another guy getting by.)
3. Annoyances (It's my $12.95, I play the way I want. My definition of having fun means I come to your level 45 party with Level 1 RSE.)

Following the natural order, these different people would group together. Why are we arguing which way is best? Why dictate or prefer one method over the other?

The problem I see with these type of argument is that it's redundant. Are you proposing an idea where all three different groups of people come together and play in harmony? Lol... reaching for the stars maybe?

Just my 2 RMB...
____________________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

#84 Apr 30 2010 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

Those seconds are some of the most awesome moments ever, though. The fanfares that erupt whenever my guild downs a difficult encounter for the first time are arguably the best times I've had playing WoW, and I'm sure others here can attest to that sort of thing. It's only made better by the anticipation that you're getting closer and closer to your desired goal as each wipe happens at later and later points in the fight. The only thing that ruins it is a string of bad luck where you actually lose progress, which happens more often than I would like, but not enough that I would re-evaluate what I find fun about the game.


These moments and that link you provided are just as satisfying to people who are not highly goal oriented, is the thing. Neurologically speaking, one person's pleasure isn't going to be that much greater than another's over a victory unless one of them celebrates by shooting up. Unfortunately being highly goal oriented doesn't -actually- improve one's abilities, just how much that person values the goal. The result is that people who don't take the game that seriously will be just as skilled as they otherwise would (though in the case of bad game design, their character may wind up horribly deficient), and less frustrated by setbacks.

Now arguably, without a willingness to sacrifice and dedicate one's self to the task, one may never acquire the necessary ability, and in some cases that is certainly true-- but in a video game, you generally don't have to make sacrifices to acquire ability. It's something you acquire just from playing the game. Your character, on the other hand, the tool that you use-- THAT may require sacrifice (like making sacrifices to afford the best golf clubs, and your alternative isn't even comparable... like golfing with a hockey stick). I see someone else commented on this:

Quote:
The gap between average gear and great gear was way too large therefore players saw a significant difference in performance to the point no one wanted people with mere "average" gear anymore. I'm not talking about end game gear here either. There SHOULD be a bigger difference between harder to get endgame stuff compared to easier obtainable stuff but there shouldn't be a requirement to already have endgame level stuff to even have the ability to do it.


But how much should one sacrifice for that fleeting moment of satisfaction anyway? Many people make those sacrifices habitually, without a second thought about if the payoff is worth it. Put the cart before the horse, so to speak-- set the goal and become absolutely determined to achieve it without ever second-guessing that it's really worth it to them.

Quote:
Hmm, I thought you'd like Brown. You two agree so fundamentally.


Maybe, I just have yet to read his work. It also seems more anecdotal, though that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. However, I see that he's an MD, and as is often the case when a professional in one field has a passionate epiphany for a subject in another field, he seems like he probably has a lot of good ideas that are not in any way new to the field that has been studying them for decades. Play has been studied in developmental psychology for a very long time, but mostly in the context of children. He certainly sounds like he has the right attitude, though, and we share in the idea that play is important for people of all ages.

Going to be out of town for the weekend.
____________________________
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.
#85 Apr 30 2010 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,536 posts
As i read more and more into this topic I realize how much I hate my university profs lol...they really are bad teachers, I agree with whoever said that - sorry i just thought I'd comment, otherwise I haven't the slightest idea of what the argument is about, it was lost on me long, long ago. Someone care to summarize the argument going on? please :D.
____________________________
MUTED
#86 Apr 30 2010 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
597 posts
Kachi wrote:
The result is that people who don't take the game that seriously will be just as skilled as they otherwise would (though in the case of bad game design, their character may wind up horribly deficient), and less frustrated by setbacks.

Now arguably, without a willingness to sacrifice and dedicate one's self to the task, one may never acquire the necessary ability, and in some cases that is certainly true-- but in a video game, you generally don't have to make sacrifices to acquire ability. It's something you acquire just from playing the game.


Look at it this way: A guy who plays football for a couple of hours on the weekends isn't going to be nearly as good at the game as a professional athlete who practices and plays the game daily. That's something we can agree on, yes?

Similarly, a guy that doesn't raid regularly is less likely to be as skilled as someone who raids on a more consistent basis, and PvP works in the same manner. You learn more and make fewer mistakes the longer you practice at something; why would you think that this game, or any game, is any different?
____________________________
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
#87 Apr 30 2010 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
Quanta wrote:
Kachi wrote:
The result is that people who don't take the game that seriously will be just as skilled as they otherwise would (though in the case of bad game design, their character may wind up horribly deficient), and less frustrated by setbacks.

Now arguably, without a willingness to sacrifice and dedicate one's self to the task, one may never acquire the necessary ability, and in some cases that is certainly true-- but in a video game, you generally don't have to make sacrifices to acquire ability. It's something you acquire just from playing the game.


Look at it this way: A guy who plays football for a couple of hours on the weekends isn't going to be nearly as good at the game as a professional athlete who practices and plays the game daily. That's something we can agree on, yes?

Similarly, a guy that doesn't raid regularly is less likely to be as skilled as someone who raids on a more consistent basis, and PvP works in the same manner. You learn more and make fewer mistakes the longer you practice at something; why would you think that this game, or any game, is any different?


Except gear != skill. Especially when you have to live with the reality that RMT does go on. And getting most gear in the game shows only that you know how to follow a specific formula to get either gil or that specific equipment piece. It still has nothing to do with your instincts or ability to play the rest of the game.
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#88 Apr 30 2010 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
597 posts
PLDXavier wrote:
Except gear != skill. Especially when you have to live with the reality that RMT does go on. And getting most gear in the game shows only that you know how to follow a specific formula to get either gil or that specific equipment piece. It still has nothing to do with your instincts or ability to play the rest of the game.


I agree, gear != skill, but that hasn't been the focus of the discussion that's been going on. We shifted towards skill around the time Kachi brought up grouping with crappy players as his preferred choice.
____________________________
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
#89 Apr 30 2010 at 10:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Never said that I preferred crappy players, only that skill/performance would not be a factor that I considered.

Quote:
Look at it this way: A guy who plays football for a couple of hours on the weekends isn't going to be nearly as good at the game as a professional athlete who practices and plays the game daily. That's something we can agree on, yes?

Similarly, a guy that doesn't raid regularly is less likely to be as skilled as someone who raids on a more consistent basis, and PvP works in the same manner. You learn more and make fewer mistakes the longer you practice at something; why would you think that this game, or any game, is any different?


Quote:
in a video game, you generally don't have to make sacrifices to acquire ability. It's something you acquire just from playing the game. Your character, on the other hand, the tool that you use-- THAT may require sacrifice (like making sacrifices to afford the best golf clubs, and your alternative isn't even comparable... like golfing with a hockey stick).


I feel that I have already addressed this, but if there's something that's unclear, maybe reword your point of contention.

Skill is not the barrier to achievement in an MMO the same way it is in football, because your achievement is not only commensurate of your skill, but to varying degrees (depending on the specific game), based on the tool that you've built (with or sans sacrifice).
____________________________
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.
#90 Apr 30 2010 at 10:34 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
597 posts
Kachi wrote:
Skill is not the barrier to achievement in an MMO the same way it is in football, because your achievement is not only commensurate of your skill, but to varying degrees (depending on the specific game), based on the tool that you've built (with or sans sacrifice).


Athletes go through a similar process when they're training their bodies to handle their sport, as that's their primary tool. Think of "toning up" as being analogous to "gearing up" in this instance: you start off with a beer gut (blues&greens) and then, through working out (running heroics and low-tier raids), you eventually build yourself a body (purplez!!) that's capable to handling the sport (high-tier raids). You're going to gain some skill along the way, assuming you're playing the game in-between building yourself up, but I can't picture a newbie being as skilled as this peers, especially if he hasn't played this seriously before.

'k, my bad analogy is finished. Let us continue our discussion! :D
____________________________
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
#91 May 01 2010 at 12:07 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I can see where you would consider that analogous, but psychologically speaking, there's just no comparison between your OWN body and some other tool. It completely removes large parts of psychology like self concept, worth, esteem, and efficacy. It's not like an athelete's body-- an apt analogy to that is your fingers, your mind, your reflexes. Your character is a tool not unlike your computer is a tool. Someone with a better computer will likely perform better, but it's hardly a reflection of their skill.

That really is where I'll need to be off for the weekend.
____________________________
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.
#92 May 02 2010 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
**
296 posts
Elitist attitudes towards gear is nothing unique from XI, and I highly doubt SE can do much to change attitudes in XIV while still catering to all types of players. Some people claim this min/maxing shows more "care" for their character. In honesty, it often reveals a player cadre that A: Wants to be told what to wear next and how to fight the next encounter and B: Is incapable or unwilling of attempting anything else. Funniest thing is this group constantly believes their gear choices, job choices, and strategy choices are THE BEST, or ONLY way to defeat certain fights, and yet it's those with a will to experiment and learn that make all the advancements in strategy over the years. Then the sheep go and copy that and once again exclude all others, while the innovators keep progressing beyond them.


You see it in every MMO, and yeah, it sucks. But I've come to expect it from the majority of any major MMO populace. The best way to avoid it is meet lots of people and try to play with like-minded friends. With some luck and hard work, the elitists will be looking to you for tips one day.
#93 May 02 2010 at 3:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
*
240 posts
ascorbic wrote:
Elitist attitudes towards gear is nothing unique from XI, and I highly doubt SE can do much to change attitudes in XIV while still catering to all types of players. Some people claim this min/maxing shows more "care" for their character. In honesty, it often reveals a player cadre that A: Wants to be told what to wear next and how to fight the next encounter and B: Is incapable or unwilling of attempting anything else. Funniest thing is this group constantly believes their gear choices, job choices, and strategy choices are THE BEST, or ONLY way to defeat certain fights, and yet it's those with a will to experiment and learn that make all the advancements in strategy over the years. Then the sheep go and copy that and once again exclude all others, while the innovators keep progressing beyond them.


You see it in every MMO, and yeah, it sucks. But I've come to expect it from the majority of any major MMO populace. The best way to avoid it is meet lots of people and try to play with like-minded friends. With some luck and hard work, the elitists will be looking to you for tips one day.


Agreed, it's hard for some average gamer to experiment with things once the innovators move on and the elitists set things in stone. It's a shame really. I don't want to delude myself either thinking FF14 will be different either, knowing now what I know from 11 it's only a matter of time before 14 will become "Do it our way or GTFO!"


____________________________
Raide < Railock / Hume(M) / "Asura" ***Missing Pandemonium***
80 Dragoon / 80 Black Mage / 80 Blue Mage
#94Quanta, Posted: May 02 2010 at 5:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You sound bitter. Top-end guild turn down your application?
#95 May 02 2010 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
**
296 posts

Quanta wrote:
You sound bitter. Top-end guild turn down your application?


Oh lord...

Of course, that must be it. Because everyone plays MMOs to be an elitist jerk, and anyone disagreeing with a "herd" mentality must be a jilted player. Get over yourself.

Quanta wrote:

As for experimentation, experiment all you like. However, please do the math and compare the numbers with the current trends before you try and force it onto your next party.


Forced? On whom? As I mentioned in my earlier post, I meet lots of people, then spend my playtime with those who share my interests and play-philosophy. The thesis of this thread was that there is an overwhelming opinion that Sheep-like elitists tend to force builds and strategies on others. So now those who choose a different path are forcing things? I don't think you thought that one out.

Current trends are what they are because of those with the desire and courage to challenge the previous trends. If everyone went to the strat guide everytime they found a new fight, there would have been no evolution in strategies over the years, and we know that isn't true. We also know by evolving philosophies on builds, gear, and strats that the Prevailing Wisdom is rarely the optimal setup.

The truth is that some people ignore the herd mentality, and most follow it. Those who follow tend to be intolerant of people who Think during their playtime. I don't know why (assumed it's not much different than the high-school notion of being different = being weird or uncool), nor do I care. I also don't believe the current situation will change unless the demographics in MMOs change. I mean, kids in high school tend to act like high school kids. My solution to the OP was to stay away from the people in game that force such nonsense and play with those that think for themselves. If it bothers you that people are out there playing differently than you, deal with it.

Edited, May 2nd 2010 7:50pm by ascorbic
#96 May 02 2010 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
*
109 posts
This type of thing isn't new, and I doubt our discussions about it on this game will end with this thread.

Play how you like, understand that the way you play may not be seen as "correct" by other people and that in some situations that may prevent you from doing things with certain groups, you are always welcome to gather more like-minded people to you and have a go of it yourself.

Know that there are reasons for many people doing things in one way, chances are that it does indeed work and most folks aren't really going to be bothered to find out some new way of doing things, they'd rather get it done and move on. If you have the time and desire to experiment, I hope this game will allow you to do so without to harsh a penalty. I also hope that you have all the success in the world in teaching others the alternative way of accomplishing things, hopefully we'll have a good strong wiki to make things easier on you.

For those of you who don't normally do things with a PUG, who find alternative methods towards success because they are forced to adapt to a given set of resources, you can be a primary source of alternative methods, so don't be silent.

Different play-styles include the type of person you associate with, and just as with play-styles there are no "right" or "wrong" choices, just those you agree with and those you don't. Maybe you and I will be on the same path, maybe we'll be on opposite ones, just don't expect conformity in the form of a multi-national multi-lingual MMORPG.
____________________________

Kashius wrote:
Things WoW did not invent:
...
- Fun
#97 May 02 2010 at 9:13 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
LemmingKingXXX wrote:
Play how you like, understand that the way you play may not be seen as "correct" by other people and that in some situations that may prevent you from doing things with certain groups, you are always welcome to gather more like-minded people to you and have a go of it yourself.


Of course. What's funny is seeing the guy who's decided by gear to ignore a player interested in accomplishing the same goals in favor of shouting endlessly in town rather than heading out and giving it a go. Always pleases me to take a "not-by-the-book" party of players out and accomplish a task, while Elitist Shouter stood around for the last half hour in town accomplishing... nothing.


LemmingKingXXX wrote:
Know that there are reasons for many people doing things in one way, chances are that it does indeed work and most folks aren't really going to be bothered to find out some new way of doing things, they'd rather get it done and move on.


Certainly they have a reason: the website they depend on told them what Jobs and gear they HAD to have to succeed, and they refuse to find out anything themselves.


LemmingKingXXX wrote:
If you have the time and desire to experiment, I hope this game will allow you to do so without to harsh a penalty. I also hope that you have all the success in the world in teaching others the alternative way of accomplishing things, hopefully we'll have a good strong wiki to make things easier on you.


Of this, I have no doubt. I've yet to find an MMO that isn't populated by those with an aversion to gear/talent/job setups not currently thought to be "optimal". I have also never found an MMO where people couldn't accomplish the same tasks in any number of setups. These "restrictions" are completely fabricated by the player base. An MMO developer goes to great lengths to make their content accessible by as many of their players as possible.

There will be instances where you miss an opportunity to level or do a particular fight because there's a Gear **** building the group. There will also be instances when you got out and accomplished a goal while the Gear **** stands alone. Making connections with other players helps immensely. Once people get to know you, most tend to look less at your gear and their strategy guide, and think more on what the two of you have accomplished previously.





As stated by you and by me in previous posts, this situation isn't about to change. It certainly isn't about to be argued away. It's a fact of life in MMOs, a genre that appeals to a wide variety of people but has it's largest player base in teenage males. I'm not so interested in fighting over what people should do as I am in reassuring the OP and those with similar concerns that there will be plenty of avenues open to them for advancement, even though XIV will certainly have the same Gear **** mentality in a portion of its players.
#98 May 02 2010 at 10:07 PM Rating: Default
ascorbic wrote:
Certainly they have a reason: the website they depend on told them what Jobs and gear they HAD to have to succeed, and they refuse to find out anything themselves.


While that is sometimes the case, there are also ample examples in any MMO of people who don't look into the game mechanics at all. There will be those who look into the "details" but reject them because they aren't that interested in them to chart a path to an "optimum" build. There will be those that look into the details, and apply them without thought or question. There will always be examples of people who will look into the mechanics and make a genuine attempt to understand the "why" behind the "what" without having much interest in actually sitting down and doing the testing that generates the "what". And then you will have the people who have a genuine interest in applying methodical approaches to determining what will produce the best results for a given situation. Theorycrafting has come a long, long way over the years from superficial best-guess scenarios to complicated spreadsheets and simulators.

Game mechanics are determined by pre-coded rules. There's nothing that says everyone who plays an MMO is under any obligation to familiarize themselves with those rules. It's just been my experience that people who neglect that end of things and then whine about not being able to clear a particular section of content are a little pathetic. The CoP missions were my first exposure to that. If you're okay to go in and walk out unsuccessful, I'm not going to give you a hard time about it. If you come out unsuccessful and whine about it having not made an effort to learn how the game works, I'm not going to give you a hard time about that, either...unless I was unfortunate enough to have been with you. In that case, I may or may not comment on the consequences of voluntary ignorance, but I certainly won't be lining up to join you in your next round of failure.

Quote:
Of this, I have no doubt. I've yet to find an MMO that isn't populated by those with an aversion to gear/talent/job setups not currently thought to be "optimal". I have also never found an MMO where people couldn't accomplish the same tasks in any number of setups. These "restrictions" are completely fabricated by the player base. An MMO developer goes to great lengths to make their content accessible by as many of their players as possible.


I don't really see that as an argument against the benefits of learning about game mechanics. I see it as a commentary on how most content is tuned. Very few encounters in any given MMO are tuned to require full time optimum results. It's the more demanding content where the benefits of theorycrafting and "optimum" builds start to shine. When you're working against unforgiving enrage/berserk timers or trying to balance damage out with damage in + healer resources, most MMOs are going to have encounters that are, at least for a time, tuned such that mediocre just isn't going to cut it. I personally don't like the idea of excluding myself from certain aspects of the game because I'm not able to make the necessary contribution. Some people are happy to spend four hours failing. Others are happy to spend an hour learning and an hour succeeding.
#99 May 02 2010 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
ascorbic wrote:
Oh lord...

Of course, that must be it. Because everyone plays MMOs to be an elitist jerk, and anyone disagreeing with a "herd" mentality must be a jilted player. Get over yourself.


You're right, that was elitist, and I apologize because I'm really trying to avoid it. However, you do give the impression of someone who was rejected from groups one too many times when you start calling people elitists or sheep.

Quote:
Forced? On whom? As I mentioned in my earlier post, I meet lots of people, then spend my playtime with those who share my interests and play-philosophy. The thesis of this thread was that there is an overwhelming opinion that Sheep-like elitists tend to force builds and strategies on others. So now those who choose a different path are forcing things? I don't think you thought that one out.


From my perspective, a lot of the people who ***** about getting rejected from groups are the same people who run around with untested, unsubstantiated, and outright terrible setups and expect the group to simply deal with it. To these people, it's as if the other 4/5/9/17/24 people in the group aren't important.

Only problem with that line of thinking is that this is a team game. I'm not letting one individual's selfishness affect the entire group; ergo, I'm not going to bring that person if I think they'll only be dead weight. I'm not wrong in thinking this, and I'm certainly not elitist about it; I'm only elitist if I'm being a **** about it.

Quote:
Current trends are what they are because of those with the desire and courage to challenge the previous trends. If everyone went to the strat guide everytime they found a new fight, there would have been no evolution in strategies over the years, and we know that isn't true. We also know by evolving philosophies on builds, gear, and strats that the Prevailing Wisdom is rarely the optimal setup.


Current trends are what they are because a bunch of math nerds in the community go and test the **** out of everything whenever a new patch hits, while the rest of us wait for the results so that we can make informed decisions about how to gear and spec. Encounter strategies are also rarely set in stone because the makeup of each group, as well as the behavior of individual players, is going to be very different from those who posted the strategy. That's why any decent raid leader goes and researches a number of strategies; he wants to find something that will work for his group when they eventually get to the fight.

Quote:
The truth is that some people ignore the herd mentality, and most follow it. Those who follow tend to be intolerant of people who Think during their playtime. I don't know why (assumed it's not much different than the high-school notion of being different = being weird or uncool), nor do I care. I also don't believe the current situation will change unless the demographics in MMOs change. I mean, kids in high school tend to act like high school kids. My solution to the OP was to stay away from the people in game that force such nonsense and play with those that think for themselves. If it bothers you that people are out there playing differently than you, deal with it.


The situation's never going to change, regardless of the audience, and regardless of the game. People will play the metagame whether you like it or not, which is where all of these problems are actually coming from. There will always be tier lists, and there will always be setups that are just plain better than others. For example, I play Frost PvE on my Mage because I enjoy the spec's playstyle. However, I'm not so deluded to think that Frost is just as good as Arcane, because I've researched it enough to know that it's not, and probably never will be. I play Frost for fun, and switch to Arcane when I need to get serious, because ultimately I'm there to help the group succeed.
____________________________
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
#100 May 02 2010 at 11:34 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Game mechanics are determined by pre-coded rules. There's nothing that says everyone who plays an MMO is under any obligation to familiarize themselves with those rules. It's just been my experience that people who neglect that end of things and then whine about not being able to clear a particular section of content are a little pathetic. The CoP missions were my first exposure to that. If you're okay to go in and walk out unsuccessful, I'm not going to give you a hard time about it. If you come out unsuccessful and whine about it having not made an effort to learn how the game works, I'm not going to give you a hard time about that, either...unless I was unfortunate enough to have been with you. In that case, I may or may not comment on the consequences of voluntary ignorance, but I certainly won't be lining up to join you in your next round of failure.


We've had very different paths, because my own CoP experiences are precisely what I'm reminded of when I think of the folly of crazed elitism. I was with one of the earlier NA groups to get through the CoP storyline (not boasting, so much as reinforcing this was pre-nerfed CoP). After getting stuck for a period a couple chapters in, my best friend and I decided to make a serious commitment to advancing. It took several hours, but we finally assembled a group of players to move forward with, and that group stayed together throughout the storyline right up through Promathia. Some of the missions we were well setup for. Some of the missions, particularly the 6-4 fight we were waaaaayy off the "optimal setup". We could have quit. We could have dumped a person deemed less than perfect for a better chance. Indeed, we had no shortage of "advice" advocating just that. But we beat every single fight with the same party, conventional wisdom be damned. Did we beat the best time on the server? Nah, and I'm sure others with more flexibility may have had an easier time on some fights. But if we would have listened to the people less tolerant of a bit of adventure, we wouldn't have made it nearly as soon, if at all. Instead, we got to have our final retort from Sea...

Now, I'm not saying there's no value to be gained in researching a challenging battle. As I'm sure you'd guess, we were up to our eyeballs in finding out anything we could about the next CoP fight each night after completing the previous one. But we didn't quit because they listed setup wasn't possible with the jobs we had available. It's the perception that there is one way to succeed, and that any other - or dare I say lesser - setup is a waste of time that I take issue with. I've had enough success in my playing days in leveling and missions to know such bull, well, is just that.

The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Quote:
Of this, I have no doubt. I've yet to find an MMO that isn't populated by those with an aversion to gear/talent/job setups not currently thought to be "optimal". I have also never found an MMO where people couldn't accomplish the same tasks in any number of setups. These "restrictions" are completely fabricated by the player base. An MMO developer goes to great lengths to make their content accessible by as many of their players as possible.


I don't really see that as an argument against the benefits of learning about game mechanics. I see it as a commentary on how most content is tuned. Very few encounters in any given MMO are tuned to require full time optimum results. It's the more demanding content where the benefits of theorycrafting and "optimum" builds start to shine. When you're working against unforgiving enrage/berserk timers or trying to balance damage out with damage in + healer resources, most MMOs are going to have encounters that are, at least for a time, tuned such that mediocre just isn't going to cut it. I personally don't like the idea of excluding myself from certain aspects of the game because I'm not able to make the necessary contribution. Some people are happy to spend four hours failing. Others are happy to spend an hour learning and an hour succeeding.


You're getting somewhat off track here, in my opinion. And even then I'll debate the accuracy of your point. I'm in no way arguing that a lack of knowledge is beneficial. I'm stating that becoming a slave to one setup artificially limits your options when it comes to advancing your goals. I've yet to encounter a single fight in my time on any of a half dozen MMOs that I truly believed was only accomplish-able with One Party setup and Exacting gear requirements. Instead of theorycrafters agonizing over the math of a battle, most gear crazed elitists simply copy and paste a setup and strategy they found on the web that had a couple successful runs. Some people would rather spend four hours in town shouting for help and rejecting what their source deems to be insufficient applicants. Others are happy to instead spend an hour trying a fight out with enthusiastic participants, succeed or fail. And you may be surprised to find how often a few clever gamers can succeed without ElitistJerks telling them they can first.

In a game about exploration and adventure, I know which group I'd want to be with...
#101 May 02 2010 at 11:40 PM Rating: Decent
**
346 posts
Quote:
It's the perception that there is one way to succeed, and that any other - or dare I say lesser - setup is a waste of time that I take issue with. I've had enough success in my playing days in leveling and missions to know such bull, well, is just that.


THIS!
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)