I'm happy when I help people and gain nothing from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurymber
For instance: I'm levelling my crafting skills not for the purpose of 'getting better stuff than my linkshell', but so I can craft gear for them and repair their gear when it gets damaged.
So SOME people are made happier by gaining, others are made happier by giving. If EVERYONE was happier by gaining, there wouldn't be nuns and monks.
As for not adding a cheat mode, simple, those that are made happier by gaining would abuse it to their own ends so that they could gain 'server first boss defeated', achievements and suchlike.
-
09-19-2011, 12:22 PMKonachibi
-
09-19-2011, 12:37 PMAzurymberYou say you're happy when you help people and gain nothing but there is a very very high chance if you took part in the experiment and your brain was scanned you would still be "more happy" having more than others. Now in general how "happy" you get is based on your testosterone levels (because that hormone is related to social dominance which propagates gene transmission).Quote:
Originally Posted by Konachibi
But regardless, the point is the average person or well above 50% of people will always strive for relative gains. So creating a game where you can't be an elitest jerk is cutting your games population by more than 50%. Which doesn't seem like a good idea when the game isn't doing well in the first place. -
09-19-2011, 12:46 PMNoctisUmbraVery cynical post to say the least. Also quite a lot of presumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurymber
Human nature is but a single variable in a complex equation that defines individuality.
That being said, I don't think anyone really disagrees that content catering to EJs is necessary. -
09-19-2011, 12:53 PMMudd
I understand what they are doing, but I do wish they would leave the difficulty the same..
I mean, sure, the first to tackle the dungeon will have trouble and will get the full challenge, and then you make it easy months later for the more casual players, but then what about the players who are to come later?
Like the ones who begin the game anew and get to that content a year after its been released.
Those people get robbed of the games challenging tidbits until they catch up and are on the latest releases like everyone else. I don't think that's right.
Adjustments to stabilize difficulty on the otherhand are fine, should they find that its unbalanced in parts. I'd just like people who are to come play the game 6 months from now to have the same challenge that we do when they get to those things. -
09-19-2011, 12:59 PMAzurymberIndividuality is predominantly cortex-centered and even that has predispositions based on common genetics in all humans towards certain types of behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoctisUmbra
From an evolutionary psychology standpoint: Humans that had more wayyyy back 10000s of years ago survived better. Therefore having genetics that promoted attaining more than others was beneficial and promoted survival, and those genes were passed on.
Now that is in no way the only things that have been passed on. We also have parts of our brain that promote cooperation and fair play. And one major reason for that is to help regulate long-term relationships.
But in todays' disjointed society of mass cities most people are isolated (not part of a village-like community) and thus you get the whole capitalism super greed and corruption thing.
But the point is human behaviour and emotion is someone static in -certain- regards across cultures and race. And the preference for relative over absolute gains is one of them. But you are right, individuality comes in to play when your brain determines which part to listen to.
like some neuroscientists propose that when you decide whether or not to "screw someone over" economically your brain has a conflict between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (emotion or what some might call an unconscious bias) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (cognition, or what some might call conscious rationality).
Other argue the ventromedial prefrontal cortex isn't a hotbed of unconcious emotion but rather a seat for pro-cooperative societal thinking (which let people function in hunter-gatherer groups)
in other words its all complicated.
But the fact that people tend to reject "unfair" offers or try to give "unfair" offers is pretty clear evidence that humans are not rational and are more interested in having more than others or winning, than having more in general. -
09-19-2011, 01:15 PMKonachibiI live in a village, does that automatically make me not isolated and not part of the disjointed society?Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurymber
Know what I did the other day? I bought my friend a present because he's been house-bound for the past week after going to hospital. He didn't ask for anything, it wasn't a special occassion, it was just me being nice. I'll gain nothing from it and I don't expect anything from him. In fact when he pays when we go out to go bowling or play pool I feel really bad about it and keep trying to pay my own way, but he won't let me. Same with at christmas, if people buy me things but I'm unable to give something back, sure I'm happy I've received something, but I also regret not being able to give something in return.
There are people out there in today's world that don't operate on greed.
But then yes it's also true that in today's world there's many more people that just want want and more want. Many MMO's nowadays cater for those people, always giving them more stuff, and those players stay with that game so they can keep getting more stuff, because it gives them a sense of superiority. In a perfect world that kind of thing wouldn't happen, but our world is far from perfect sadly :( -
09-19-2011, 01:17 PMNoctisUmbra
Essentially, every human has a voice in their head that tells them "you've got to have all that cool stuff that everyone else wants - and you've got to have it without anyone else having it before, or even after you" but that is but one source of motivation or desire.
This debate can easily become something about nature vs. nurture, but avoiding that completely we can agree that there are many more avenues of pleasure for people and as an individual, one may find providing, assisting, sharing and/or even servicing another to be much more satisfying than the pursuit of personal gain.
You basically ended up saying the same thing, albeit with much more technical terms Azury.
In conclusion, no person can say that having more than their peers will not make them happy in the slightest without kidding themselves, yes. The fact remains, however, that many people can and will say that the pleasure they get from that is easily surpassed by the pleasure they get from other, less greedy pursuits. -
09-19-2011, 01:32 PMAzurymberyes. in a village people know each other and rely more on long-term relationships. If you were to screw someone over or hurt someone and spend much of your life living around them it would negatively impact your future. You're brain realizes that and thus makes decisions unconsciously to rationally maximize your future happiness. If you've spent your life in a village reputation means more to you than someone in a city. Thus you're brain will have developed better ways of maximizing your happiness inside a somewhat closed community. If that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Konachibi
The only culture/societies to display a majority of people willing to "share" instead of seeking relative gains were i believe tribes in south america and eastern africa that live in jungle-type areas and have almost no connection with the outside world. And even those studies were preformed by anthropologists and may not be 100% scientifically sound.
But its nothing about todays world. It's a universal and timeless part of cultured humanity. Its kind of ingrained into human genetics, just like reflexs are. -
09-19-2011, 01:36 PMUser201109011315
I think Azury's point was that relative gains appeals to a primal urge within us all, or at the very least some of us all, and hence an MMO that doesn't want to exclude a huge portion of human beings ought to satisfy that.
As ashamed as I am to admit, I have had a couple server-firsts in FFXIV, and I actually did enjoy lording it over other people, but at the same you have to realise that something should be fun in and of itself and not just when comparing the rewards you got. And it's a bit ignoble to derive your pleasure primarily from the leverage it gives you over everyone else.
From a marketing standpoint it makes sense to include relative gains if it is true that humans enjoy this, but its a bit sleazy.
Anyways, I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with gear becoming obsolete every 3 months? -
09-19-2011, 01:41 PMAzurymberPeople can say that but in reality helping peers is in fact a method of creating hapiness via having more. If you give someone a present or money when they are broke deep down you're brain is realizing you are able to do that because you are more "elite".Quote:
Originally Posted by NoctisUmbra
But yes i agree there are many more avenues. My point is this game lacks them completely. If it wants to turn away from elite endgame content it needs to implement other forms of "fun" that outshine the desire to be better.
and nature vs nurture argument is over :p We know 100% humans are genetically programmed in certain ways that have been essential to our evolution + survival (ex. we get horny and want to reproduce).
we also know 100% that in early childhood the brain develops in different ways depending on external factors including diet, environment, early education, etc. (ex. learning a language at a young age is significantly easier than when you are older due to how neural pathways form)
So we know everyone is a mixture of nature vs nurture.
much of understanding human behaviour now is looking at how different parts of the brain compete or react together in order to form decisions (both consciously and unconsciously)