Pandemic screwed essential workers trying to /list

[Castle2.0]

It's a lotto either way, and ultimately it has to be. There's no other way to fairly distribute one mastone among 100 people that want it.

Two logical fallacies here: (1) False equivocation and (2) begging the question.

(1) See poker vs lottery example. Some RNG does not equal pure RNG. Poker does not equal lottery.
(2) You assume pure RNG is the only way to 'fairly distribute' the manastone and thus your pure RNG must be correct.

Effectively, you're saying:
"Your idea is based on the same premise as mine. And since my standard of fairness is the right one, my idea must be correct."

Wrong.

The question is, do we only let the most insane players, who are willing to do (extreme) non-EverQuest things (like not sleep for a week), participate in that lottery, or do we open it up to everyone who wants to play the game?

Another logical fallacy: False dichotomy - I got a Manastone in 18 hours once. Anyone who really wants it, can stay up 18 hours once and be totally healthy and sane.

To those who go long....no one is staying up for a week. People are banding together with friends to camp an item, and taking turns camping it. Sounds pretty EQ to me. Kind of like getting your epic. I'd even call it an "asynchronous epic camp" since it's friends camping the item in succession.

Your argument is pretty flaccid: " Fellas.... it's INSANITY or my way (whcih BTW I am going to tell you, is just so very reasonable, so good, I'm just going to describe it as "open it up to everyone who wants to play the game").

Lastly, your Bernie Bro socialist approach is one of the worst ideas to 'fix' list. I'm not going to ping pong the idea back and forth with you on this. It will never happen because it is so antithetical to the spirit of EQ. It cheapens the goal (manastone) by requiring nothing more than dumb luck. No feeling of ownership, no feeling of accomplishment -- it's socialism.

I'll let you argue it out with others. I've made my points -- they can stand on their own merits, and I'll bet 50K, your approach is never implemented for Manastone on Green.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Two logical fallacies here: (1) False equivocation and (2) begging the question.

Jesus Christ: I get page after page of Blake, and then out of nowhere someone wants to have a rational debate! I think you're wrong about my "fallacies", but damn it's nice to have someone who at least engages, and with logic no less!

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(1) See poker vs lottery example. Some RNG does not equal pure RNG. Poker does not equal lottery.
(2) You assume pure RNG is the only way to 'fairly distribute' the manastone and thus your pure RNG must be correct.

Effectively, you're saying:
"Your idea is based on the same premise as mine. And since my standard of fairness is the right one, my idea must be correct."

Wrong.

So not sleeping for a week = playing poker? I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(2) False dichotomy - I got a Manastone in 18 hours once. Anyone who really wants it, can stay up 18 hours once and be totally healthy and sane.

Ok, you tell me: what's the name of the logical fallacy where you take an exceptional case and try to use it to ignore the actually applicable cases (bonus points for the Latin name [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.])?

Most people getting a manastone, and for certain everyone since the servers merged, have all needed much, much longer than 18 hours.

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To those who go long....no one is staying up for a week. People are banding together with friends to camp an item, and taking turns camping it. Sounds pretty EQ to me. Kind of like getting your epic. I'd even call it an "asynchronous epic camp" since it's friends camping the item in succession.

So sharing accounts is how things were done in classic EverQuest? You had to trade accounts with another real life player to get the good stuff? Strange, I don't remember that at all: that seems 100% like an unclassic requirement introduced solely by P99.

(But again, I don't blame P99; trying to recreate an ancient game when the players have modern knowledge is a hard problem, and /list 1.0 was a great solution ... I just think an even better way is possible.)

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(3) Lastly, your Bernie Bro socialist approach is one of the worst ideas to 'fix' list. I'm not going to ping pong the idea back and forth with you on this. It will never happen because it is so antithetical to the spirit of EQ. It cheapens the goal (manastone) by requiring nothing more than dumb luck. No feeling of ownership, no feeling of accomplishment -- it's socialism.

I'll let you argue it out with others. I've made my points -- they can stand on their own merits, and I'll bet 50K, your approach never is implemented for Manastone on Green.

You lost me here. How is it socialist for everyone who puts in the effort to have an equal chance to gain a reward, based on how much effort they put in? That's fucking capitalism bro: no one's guaranteed a thing, and the only way to make sure you get something you want is to work harder for it.

It's more socialist (at least if we're talking Russian socialism and not say Danish socialism) to pick an arbitrary elite group that did nothing within the game itself to deserve it, and give them all the good shit.

[Mblake81]

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

Jesus Christ: I get page after page of Blake, and then out of nowhere someone wants to have a rational debate!

Bite me, you icy nutts Barbarian