This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Quel'Delar Hilt Drop-Rate Increased
Return to board index
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
PessimiStick
Even your other argument that states you did most the work so you are entitled to it is completely moronic, i do much more dps than everyone else therefore i deserve the most upgrades to my dps........ seriously?
Yes. Clearly the most effective use of a DPS upgrade is on the best DPS player. Arguing otherwise is foolish.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
90790
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Davidson
You seem to be very confused. Group loot rules
are
the following: Need if you will use the item, in its current form. Greed if you will use the item for the purposes of selling or disenchanting in order to profit from it.
i must respectfully disagree:
Your
loot rules maybe like that, the game however defines it as showed by options available in you item looting frame; you have full
righs
to click on any of these options.
of course you have to also be prepared for consequences, if your choice was not received well by other players.
personally, i wouldn't need on item that i cannot use (or already won once), but it is because it would
seem to me
unfair or unethical, that's however not the same as my (or anybody elses) rights to need/greed/pass.
+1
Oh yea, and also, I don't think it's a ninja because I'm pretty sure everyone rolled Need. He just won the roll.
Post by
PessimiStick
Pesimistic, do you get your ideas from mein kampf or what? You are the most arrogant,uncarring,self centered prick I have ever seen around these forums.I answered logically. The best player leverages upgrades more effectively than worse players. This is not a complicated subject.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
90790
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
PessimiStick
Yes,it is and you are wrong. Better gear scales better with undergeared players. 10 str difference between your sword and the upgrade won't make bigger difference than the undergeared who's sword has half the stats.
Any other illogical arguement?That is only true if the difference in effective application is small enough to overcome the original scaling disparity. That is more difficult to quantify on the fly, but I would always err on the side of the provably effective player. I have done 3500 DPS in full level 70 gear (at level 80). When someone rocks 2k DPS in a raid, I'm HIGHLY doubtful of their ability to effectively play their class. As such, I have no problem with other more effective players taking loot from them.
Post by
Malgayne
Pesimistic, do you get your ideas from mein kampf or what? You are the most arrogant,uncarring,self centered prick I have ever seen around these forums.I answered logically. The best player leverages upgrades more effectively than worse players. This is not a complicated subject.
That depends on the overall goal of the game. The player who can get the most usage out of an item should only be given the item if your overall goal is to maximize the amount of effectiveness gained out of every possible drop. I don't think that's a particularly interesting or valuable goal, though.
The utilitarian goal is to maximize the amount of pleasure that the game offers to the world, which would mean to get the most fun possible from the game, which would mean giving the item to the player who would get the most joy out of having it.
I suspect though, that there as an individualistic ethic going into this decision—which would mean rather than maximizing the amount of fun the game offers all its players, the goal would be to maximize the amount of fun for yourself. In theory the best way to do this would be for all drops to go to you, except whatever is necessary to keep enough other players in the game so that you can enjoy it.
My suspicion is that the latter is your real position, and the (seemingly flawed?) logic that better gear should go to better players, or to people who pull their weight, is actually a justification because the individualistic ethic is scorned by most of society. What say ye?
That's right. I just joined the party.
Post by
PessimiStick
I say nay.
I have no problem with other people whom I trust taking loot that is a larger upgrade for them than it is for me. Or anyone in the general sense, for that matter.
This is slightly muddied in a PuG situation as there is no end benefit for gearing up random players. I am unlikely to ever play with them again, and even less likely to need them to play well. In the more common guild situation, the goal is always to maximize the effectiveness of the raid as a whole. If that means I get loot, cool. If not, cool.
In some way this does have an individualistic undertone in the sense that my raid doing well does benefit me both directly and indirectly, but I'm more concerned with the collective as a whole.
Also, I would think you'd have learned by now that the "scorn" of society is of no concern to me whatsoever. ;)
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172710
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MikadoGG
I don't think arguing these points is worthwhile. I firmly believe that the majority of people in this game are even more selfish than they are irl, because irl sometimes you have to face the consequences of unnecessary greed. In game though, you face no real consequences whatsoever even if you happen to take away something from someone on your realm or even your guild.
Even if the offending party knows that the other people will use said item as a big upgrade he might get enjoyment out of simply taking it. Even if it isn't worth anything gold wise except vendor price. There are simply people out there who believe they are better and more entitled to everything than anyone else. They see taking from others not as a chance to better their character but as a chance to "punish" people they deem undeserving.
I am not surprised this is the prevailing view and so many people hold it. Which is what makes finding cool people in game so much more special. They are fun to be around, trustworthy and they make this game fun. The other ones are so wrapped up in getting the most benefit out of every situation at the expense of others that they forget that half of the game's appeal is that it is a MULTIPLAYER game where you can not only pewpew and get epix but enjoy other people's company.
There is a wide moral gap separating us and we will never understand each other no matter how long we throw insults on the forums.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Malgayne
I say nay.
I have no problem with other people whom I trust taking loot that is a larger upgrade for them than it is for me. Or anyone in the general sense, for that matter.
This is slightly muddied in a PuG situation as there is no end benefit for gearing up random players. I am unlikely to ever play with them again, and even less likely to need them to play well. In the more common guild situation, the goal is always to maximize the effectiveness of the raid as a whole. If that means I get loot, cool. If not, cool.
In some way this does have an individualistic undertone in the sense that my raid doing well does benefit me both directly and indirectly, but I'm more concerned with the collective as a whole.
Also, I would think you'd have learned by now that the "scorn" of society is of no concern to me whatsoever. ;)
So if I understand you correctly, the goal of the game for you is to promote the fun and enjoyment of the people in your playgroup.
This is understandable, and I think most people play the game this way to a greater or lesser degree. It's understandable for me to prioritize the needs of my family over the needs of a stranger, or the needs of a guildmate over the needs of a pug. But I wonder at the reasoning
behind
it, which is exposed in your policy towards pugs.
Again, your goal seems to be to maximize effectiveness, rather than to maximize fun. It may be (as it is for most) that being effective
is
fun. Likewise, I expect you run with a guild that agrees that most of the fun of the game comes from being effective. This doesn't mean that there is "no end benefit for gearing up random players", however. The end benefit is precisely the same—it increases their effectiveness. So you may say that you're not being individualistic because you are devoted to the success of your playgroup, but the underlying assumption that there is no reason to account for the success of people outside the playgroup indicates that it is nonetheless a basically individualistic motive—that you want to promote the success of
your personal
playgroup, for no real reason other than that it is yours.
Post by
PessimiStick
So if I understand you correctly, the goal of the game for you is to promote the fun and enjoyment of the people in your playgroup.
This is understandable, and I think most people play the game this way to a greater or lesser degree. It's understandable for me to prioritize the needs of my family over the needs of a stranger, or the needs of a guildmate over the needs of a pug. But I wonder at the reasoning
behind
it, which is exposed in your policy towards pugs.To some extent, yes, but I
am
genuinely happy for the friends I play with when they are rewarded.
So you may say that you're not being individualistic because you are devoted to the success of your playgroup, but the underlying assumption that there is no reason to account for the success of people outside the playgroup indicates that it is nonetheless a basically individualistic motive—that you want to promote the success of
your personal
playgroup, for no real reason other than that it is yours.I believe I already mentioned that (in not so many words) but yes, that's essentially correct.
Post by
431809
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Malgayne
So you may say that you're not being individualistic because you are devoted to the success of your playgroup, but the underlying assumption that there is no reason to account for the success of people outside the playgroup indicates that it is nonetheless a basically individualistic motive—that you want to promote the success of
your personal
playgroup, for no real reason other than that it is yours.I believe I already mentioned that (in not so many words) but yes, that's essentially correct.
This, I think, is the real disagreement here. I think that the people who argue with you, myself included, would indicate that this implies a callous and selfish attitude towards others, and they (as well as I) feel that this behavior deserves correction. If you disagree, then there is a much deeper moral issue that must be argued before common ground can be found.
Post by
PessimiStick
This, I think, is the real disagreement here. I think that the people who argue with you, myself included, would indicate that this implies a callous and selfish attitude towards others, and they (as well as I) feel that this behavior deserves correction. If you disagree, then there is a much deeper moral issue that must be argued before common ground can be found.Indeed. It's highly unlikely that such a debate would come to a conclusion however, unless you've been hiding the secret to world peace this whole time. =p
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.