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.]

How is that not "We can so we do"?

You seem to think that's not a valid reason and never explained why

[Lagaidh]

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

You seem to think that's not a valid reason and never explained why

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?

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.

I just think that's incredibly sad.

The realist in me knows this won't change, and knowing that, I can gain solace from the fact that I don't have to enter that arena if I don't want to.

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.

[toyodafenninro]

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?

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.

I just think that's incredibly sad.

The realist in me knows this won't change, and knowing that, I can gain solace from the fact that I don't have to enter that arena if I don't want to.

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.

Whether for good or bad, a core component of Everquest has (and always will be) the comparison between one's toon and other toons and one's guild and other guilds.

So powerful is this desire that we, as players, are willing to camp items, rush spawns, engage in dramaz...

No reason to be shocked. EQ is a multiplayer game in which one shows off the results of their individual pursuits (or guild pursuits) to outsiders.

[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.

[mr.miketastic]

Quote: "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."


This actually made me laugh a bit. The reality though, is that the efforts of the athlete almost always result in a tangible benefit. One example would be Tiger woods. Tiger has more money than Croesus, and apparently got more ass than a toilet seat (the result of which was not so beneficial). Another would be the health gained from a strict physical regimen. The irony is comparing people sitting for hours in front of a computer screen vying for ones and zeroes, sedentary, to people who do something for wealth, health and pussy.

[Messianic]

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

The irony is comparing people sitting for hours in front of a computer screen vying for ones and zeroes, sedentary, to people who do something for wealth, health...

Since you didn't actually attack the analogy or refute it, you admit it's valid, despite your subjective valuations of "tangible benefit."

The scale and circumstances are different, but the form is the same.

[Qenaden]

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

Since you didn't actually attack the analogy or refute it, you admit it's valid, despite your subjective valuations of "tangible benefit."

The scale and circumstances are different, but the form is the same.

Snap!

[Nakara]

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

Since you didn't actually attack the analogy or refute it, you admit it's valid, despite your subjective valuations of "tangible benefit."
.

pretty sure saying your analogy is dumb as fuck is refuting it

[Nakara]

you should keep throwing around your phrase 'subjective valuations' that your probably just learned in your econ 101 course to try and keep sounding smart though

[Messianic]

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

pretty sure saying your analogy is dumb as fuck is refuting it

"Refute: 1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove."

Insults do not a proof make

you should keep throwing around your phrase 'subjective valuations' that your probably just learned in your econ 101 course to try and keep sounding smart though

Keep throwing insults and avoiding any real debate - it makes you smarter. I didn't take Econ 101 btw, I just skipped the compilation texts and read the classics, and listened to seminars/debates. Most econ professors, particularly Keynesian-leaning professors or some supply-siders will argue against subjective valuation since they have statist tendencies, and therefore a supposed "objective" framework from which to start. I doubt its something covered in any detail in Macro, Micro, or the Econ 101 class that has a little of both (at least regionally accredited institutions such as state Universities generally structure the classes that way).

But all of that probably went over your head anyway. I'm happy if it didn't, however, because you'll be able to reply with substance instead of:

"u think ur so smart, keep using your key phrases," and "calling your analogy stupid disproves it."

Cmon, try harder.

I think pointing out the irony of the false analogy is a refutation.

Pointing out the irony of an analogy isn't a refutation, and assuming its a false analogy isn't a refutation. You didn't show why it was false (except for one claim which I will answer more fully below) - you just said one provides a tangible benefit while one doesn't, which is actually subjective and false, given that evidently, people do receive tangible pleasure from playing EQ.

It's ironic that there is a direct parallel between people addicted to online video games and those addicted to sex - again, the circumstance/context is different (and perhaps addiction to sex is more commendable), but the form is the same. Things can be entirely different in one respect but completely the same in others.

I am pretty sure the valuation is "subjective" if it were only readily apparent to one person.

That's not what subjective valuation really means..100% of individuals in the world could "agree" on something, but that wouldn't make it objective. But that's a whole side issue which doesn't need to be dealt with here to continue the argument.

In this case, I am almost positive that having millions and all the sex you want is a pretty tangible benefit. On the flip side, having uber leet gear from many hours spent on your ass tapping keys is not going to get you money or any pussy beyond badjojo.com.

The reality though, is that the efforts of the athlete almost always result in a tangible benefit.

As far as I can see, the above is the only real point you made against the analogy. It's a false premise to say that tangible benefits do not come from EQ. Playing EQ almost always results in a tangible benefit, at least to some people (i.e. pleasure, the basis for all "tangible benefits"), or people would never play it over other alternatives. Do you have sex 24/7? Do you have sex at every single opportunity? If you're honest, you say you don't, since we have lives outside of our genitalia. At times, you value certain things over sex.

Do you pleasure yourself constantly instead of playing EQ, or do it constantly while you play EQ? No? Then, at least at times, you value EQ higher than sexual pleasure. At those times you value EQ more, you play. Why is your position of more sex better than someone else's position of more EQ (although both positions possess different amounts of both) objectively better? If both of you are content with the amounts you have, why should everyone follow your balance?

Since both result in tangible benefits, the analogy stands. As I said before, the scale and circumstance are different, but the form is the same - sacrificing more time, resources, or opportunities than the other guy to receive a greater reward in the same arena - and you don't always get a greater reward, but is almost always the result of putting more time into a competitive endeavor than your competitors.