Sapiverenus wrote: » @Aerlana@Noaani you're both trolls
Mag7spy wrote: » akabear wrote: » "Once the raiding scene dies the game starts dying" by Iskiab That persons comment translate to once raid content runs out they need dps meters to extend content which isn't true. They can min max without it and test new things out and get their higher number on killing the boss faster than the last time. Ironic them using a meter makes that happen even faster to the point eventually they can just quit anyway.
akabear wrote: » "Once the raiding scene dies the game starts dying" by Iskiab
Iskiab wrote: » As an aside, I also found that there were more jerks in games without DPS meters. Without a meter you get a lot of loud mouths claiming they're amazing types, where when you have a meter things become a meritocracy.
Noaani wrote: » Iskiab wrote: » As an aside, I also found that there were more jerks in games without DPS meters. Without a meter you get a lot of loud mouths claiming they're amazing types, where when you have a meter things become a meritocracy. Without naming names, we have a few of these in this very thread. The point about a meritocracy is succinct. It would seem that those not wanting others to be able to use a tracker to see how they are doing simply dont want their merit to be known.
The most obvious victim of this cycle is the middle class. Forced idleness excludes the middle class from a feeling of social usefulness. Stagnating wages and rising debt levels exclude the middle class from socioeconomic prosperity. Diminishing social mobility excludes the middle class from the hope of achieving the American Dream. At the same time that meritocratic inequality excludes the middle class, meritocratic ideology convinces the middle class that this situation is their own fault. “The meritocracy trap,” writes Markovits, “imprisons the imagination, casting economic exclusion as an individual failure to measure up.”
In short, elites are shuttled into a life-long, endless competition that not only consumes their life quantitatively but qualitatively as well, leaving no room for self-expression, actualization, or discovery — only self-exploitation, value extraction, and endless anxiety.
When we think of meritocracy, we tend to think of “the best and the brightest” being rewarded, but Markovits wants to introduce a new version of meritocracy where being “the best” is far less important than being simply “good enough.”
MrPockets wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Iskiab wrote: » As an aside, I also found that there were more jerks in games without DPS meters. Without a meter you get a lot of loud mouths claiming they're amazing types, where when you have a meter things become a meritocracy. Without naming names, we have a few of these in this very thread. The point about a meritocracy is succinct. It would seem that those not wanting others to be able to use a tracker to see how they are doing simply dont want their merit to be known. I've been trying to stay out of this thread recently...but the topic about a meritocracy was interesting enough for me to look up some literature about it. Now this is just me doing a quick google search, I'm not claiming to be an expert...I just found this article an interesting read.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/24/20919030/meritocracy-book-daniel-markovits-inequality-rich TL;DR - A couple quotes that I think are relevant to this discussion: The most obvious victim of this cycle is the middle class. Forced idleness excludes the middle class from a feeling of social usefulness. Stagnating wages and rising debt levels exclude the middle class from socioeconomic prosperity. Diminishing social mobility excludes the middle class from the hope of achieving the American Dream. At the same time that meritocratic inequality excludes the middle class, meritocratic ideology convinces the middle class that this situation is their own fault. “The meritocracy trap,” writes Markovits, “imprisons the imagination, casting economic exclusion as an individual failure to measure up.” In short, elites are shuttled into a life-long, endless competition that not only consumes their life quantitatively but qualitatively as well, leaving no room for self-expression, actualization, or discovery — only self-exploitation, value extraction, and endless anxiety. When we think of meritocracy, we tend to think of “the best and the brightest” being rewarded, but Markovits wants to introduce a new version of meritocracy where being “the best” is far less important than being simply “good enough.”
Sapiverenus wrote: » Instead of talking about merit just call it performance and the tool 'Tracker" as a Hack that ruins the game. Your ability to perform will be impeded and I hope you fail to excel as a result Noaani. If you can't excel or figure out what damage is being dealt then you're not cut out for leading a Guild in a game that requires more skill than you can offer. get wrecked
Sapiverenus wrote: » Your ability to perform will be impeded and I hope you fail to excel as a result Noaani.
NiKr wrote: » Good people trying to ruin chads' lives yet again Not letting gods just be gods
Azherae wrote: » So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt.
MrPockets wrote: » I'm going to avoid feeding the troll and continue on with what I find to be an interesting conversation.... Azherae wrote: » So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt. I would challenge this a bit. (because I find it an interesting conversation) Sure, I guess the combat provides numbers...but what makes these numbers 'merit'? Is combat/numbers the main thing that matters in an MMO? I would argue not. Most people describe MMOs as social games...leading me to believe that the 'merit' would come more from social interactions. ie: Is this person fun to play with? Do they make me laugh? Do they cheer me up? Do they support me when I need it? etc. I think similarly to what we've discussed about toxicity, can also apply to 'merit'. Each individual has their own definition. I imagine to some players being 'toxic' equates to "low social merit"
Azherae wrote: » That's a perspective for single player games, tho.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » That's a perspective for single player games, tho. Eh, it's just a perspective of someone who's fine with others being stronger than them if it's deserved. A "bucket of crabs" kind of approach, but from the pov of the crab
Azherae wrote: » I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here.
Azherae wrote: » MrPockets wrote: » I'm going to avoid feeding the troll and continue on with what I find to be an interesting conversation.... Azherae wrote: » So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt. I would challenge this a bit. (because I find it an interesting conversation) Sure, I guess the combat provides numbers...but what makes these numbers 'merit'? Is combat/numbers the main thing that matters in an MMO? I would argue not. Most people describe MMOs as social games...leading me to believe that the 'merit' would come more from social interactions. ie: Is this person fun to play with? Do they make me laugh? Do they cheer me up? Do they support me when I need it? etc. I think similarly to what we've discussed about toxicity, can also apply to 'merit'. Each individual has their own definition. I imagine to some players being 'toxic' equates to "low social merit" Agreed, but again bear in mind that the entire premise of this discussion is that Intrepid claims to offer powerful enemies that only the top percentage of players on the server can defeat. Not 'will'. 'Can'. It is required for 'aspiration of those who are less skilled than that'. Intrepid says 'this is a form of merit we wish for players to aspire to'. If they found that 95% of their playerbase never even tried because the game was so fun otherwise that their raiding scene did not matter, I would expect and hope that they would spend less time on that type of PvE content. But for the purposes of the 'Trackers' part of this, the concern is always 'having objective data for one's own build' (could be done without a Tracker by most people) and 'having objective data for performance in a full raid against powerful high-tier enemies (cannot be done without a Tracker by most people without spending up to 3x as long outside of game as in it, GENERALLY). So the meritocracy here that 'is going to be subject to meters' is the high end content. With the suggested method, there's no way that 'random PvE groups just leveling in a dungeon' who don't already have a Guild Tracker for a different reason would ever see use of such a thing. So yes, MMOs are social, but THIS MMO contains high end PvE combat, or supposedly will, and it contains high end group vs group contests, which both lead to meritocratic win/loss situations. If I can kill your character in every fight we have, I might not be fun to play with, I might not make you laugh or cheer you up or offer you anything other than 'an unbeatable opponent'. To overcome that part of it, you would need 'better performance', not 'social skill'.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I want my GuildMates to be able to keep up, is what I'm saying here. Yeah, and I'm the crab that would hold them down if they couldn't break through on their own. Which is why I said that kind people like you and Noaani are stopping the naturally superior people from standing out as much, because with you helping non-superior people the success of "gods" won't seem as big. Well, Intrepid claim that skill will amount to at least half of player's power so I might be wrong in my assumption but we'll see about that.
MrPockets wrote: » Azherae wrote: » MrPockets wrote: » I'm going to avoid feeding the troll and continue on with what I find to be an interesting conversation.... Azherae wrote: » So yes, it's relevant here, but unfortunately games DO give you a few objective concepts of 'merit' that you must personally ignore in order to reach the sort of peace required to not trigger this effect. MMOs are a meritocracy already, particularly PvX ones (no matchmaking, competition for resources). This is another case where the Trackers are a 'tool', to be used by either the 'oppressor' or the 'uplifter', the game itself is creating the meritocratic tilt. I would challenge this a bit. (because I find it an interesting conversation) Sure, I guess the combat provides numbers...but what makes these numbers 'merit'? Is combat/numbers the main thing that matters in an MMO? I would argue not. Most people describe MMOs as social games...leading me to believe that the 'merit' would come more from social interactions. ie: Is this person fun to play with? Do they make me laugh? Do they cheer me up? Do they support me when I need it? etc. I think similarly to what we've discussed about toxicity, can also apply to 'merit'. Each individual has their own definition. I imagine to some players being 'toxic' equates to "low social merit" Agreed, but again bear in mind that the entire premise of this discussion is that Intrepid claims to offer powerful enemies that only the top percentage of players on the server can defeat. Not 'will'. 'Can'. It is required for 'aspiration of those who are less skilled than that'. Intrepid says 'this is a form of merit we wish for players to aspire to'. If they found that 95% of their playerbase never even tried because the game was so fun otherwise that their raiding scene did not matter, I would expect and hope that they would spend less time on that type of PvE content. But for the purposes of the 'Trackers' part of this, the concern is always 'having objective data for one's own build' (could be done without a Tracker by most people) and 'having objective data for performance in a full raid against powerful high-tier enemies (cannot be done without a Tracker by most people without spending up to 3x as long outside of game as in it, GENERALLY). So the meritocracy here that 'is going to be subject to meters' is the high end content. With the suggested method, there's no way that 'random PvE groups just leveling in a dungeon' who don't already have a Guild Tracker for a different reason would ever see use of such a thing. So yes, MMOs are social, but THIS MMO contains high end PvE combat, or supposedly will, and it contains high end group vs group contests, which both lead to meritocratic win/loss situations. If I can kill your character in every fight we have, I might not be fun to play with, I might not make you laugh or cheer you up or offer you anything other than 'an unbeatable opponent'. To overcome that part of it, you would need 'better performance', not 'social skill'. I guess what I really wanted to address was the idea that trackers available to all via the game itself create this "ideal meritocracy". I'm saying that IF that is true...then we should look into the potential negative sides of that "ideal meritocracy" too. I think that article brings up very good arguments around those negatives. The combat 'merits' can totally exist along side the social ones, but should ALL players aspire to that high end PvE content? Or should ALL players aspire to be fun to play with in a social setting/game? I think by making trackers "acceptable" or IS providing their own, pushes the 'merit scale' towards this idea that combat/numbers are the main way to prove you are "good" at this game. With that all said, do I think I know the 'correct' answer to this? No way, but I'd like to think I understand where both sides are coming from. I think this is an interesting way to view this debate with a different perspective.
Azherae wrote: » I am not convinced that the reason we get all these 'easy' and 'dumbed down' games isn't almost entirely because the retention on harder games is too low. Now, that's fine when the game doesn't have the 'meritocracy' that (I hope) we are discussing, but if a game says it from the start, then I'll take them at their word.
