the server, loot and the way things are

[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Lagaidh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I said I can understand the perspective of might makes right, but do the folks in power (with the advantages of being on the server earlier) ever even think about sharing that part of the game?

It's not "might makes right." It's "I have more free time which I am willing to devote to EQ." We're not talking about fascism or ends justifying means here - we're talking about something more akin to one athlete spending far more of his time and sacrificing more of his life toward a particular goal than another (allowing talent to be equal), and therefore receiving the award as a result.

Originally Posted by Lagaidh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Personally, I don't think it's valid. My core inner self would like to be an idealist, no matter how foolish the fancy. In my perfect world: Folks wouldn't be so greedy or take things so incredibly seriously that it is their stated mission to keep other players down simply for the sake of remaining the "best" as stated in this thread.

That's how you view the ideal world. And it has errors - first, "Greed" is a worthless word for all intents and purposes. What about those who want the rotation? Aren't they "Greedy" for an encounter as well, they just go about it by trying to force people into a system they designed, as opposed to sacrificing more time to "be there first"?

Second, "taking things seriously" is entirely subjective and people will assign different values to different experiences. No one's valuation is more valid than anyone else's, regardless how steeped in self-morality it is.

Third, those who "compete" are not "keeping others down" as a matter of their intent - Does a gold medalist "keep the silver medalist down?" It has nothing to do with some silly idea of oppression or suppression - it's merely the fact that they have chosen to devote more of their resources to an online game and do so with the expectation that in most cases, they will receive a greater reward than those who don't.

The ideal world, in my opinion, isn't a bunch of carebears sitting around distributing rewards based on "it's your turn," when Carebear #1 is the one putting in all the work to acquire the items to sell at market or equip those close to him. There are lots of things I don't like that are side-effects of a pure meritocracy, but the essential core is still "valid."

Originally Posted by Lagaidh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I guess I'm just shocked that people are so invested in their own pursuits in a fantasy world that they will knowingly and willfully block out folks from experiencing the same content at some point... just to say they're number one.

It may not even be to say "they're number one." That's an assumption. Perhaps each time they do an encounter that they've already experienced they wish to be able to master the encounter, and show others how to conquer said encounter more effectively in a guild setting. That's more likely the case - you just don't hear those people in R/F/NSFW because they're busy enjoying the game instead of complaining constantly or causing drama for giggles.

But all of this is based on your subjective valuation (coupled with unsubstantiated assumptions about the source of that valuation, i.e. "i need my self-worth validated by killing inny 85 times") of certain experiences and certain encounters - and it's not binding on others.

The fact of that matter is the type of enjoyment of the game varies, and it's simply more fair to allow those who are willing to sacrifice more to get more out of the game. Again, if the relevant organizations make agreements to "cap" the sacrifice that anyone has to put forth to experience those high-end encounters, so be it.