Disapointed with how players are using the MA?
By
adgramaine,
Posted on: 2009-06-04 09:17 in Mission Architect
That fact that the ratings system is borked is old news, my friend, and I agree with you. Although I consider it perfetly legiitimate that some farm maps have high ratings. IF its a very good farm mission then it deserves recognition as a good farm mission, just as a well written story arc, or a particularly challenging AV mission deserv recognition as good stories, or good challenges.
Unfortunately, there is no method by which to differentiate what you're rating it on. Ive always felt there should be - that farm maps should be rated against other farm maps; story arcs against other stories; and those rare missions designed primarily as unique tactical scenarios against others of a similar nature.
[ QUOTE ]
To turn a hobby into a profession takes serious committment (time and monetary) from a person. If someone is only doing it as a hobby and is not serious enough to commit to it professionally, why should they expect their audience to take it seriously in return? Why should they be offended if people overlook their work in favor of something else? Do they really have the right to complain? Frankly, they should be glad that people are looking at it in the first place.
[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes the notion that "professionalism" is synonymous with "commitment" and that's not automatically true. The issue is the commitment itself, not the amateur or professional status.
Not all hobbies generate less effort and commitment than all professions, even when talking about specific people. I know many people that put more effort and commitment into their hobbies than their professions.
The statement "if someone is only doing it as a hobby ... why should they expect their audience to take it seriously?" suggests the more general question "why should *anyone* expect their audience to take them seriously?" I believe the answer to that general question is equally applicable to amateurs and professionals alike, in most fields.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
This presumes the notion that "professionalism" is synonymous with "commitment" and that's not automatically true. The issue is the commitment itself, not the amateur or professional status.
[/ QUOTE ]
To me, when you're committed to profession, what you're really committing to is a career. It wouldn't be *just* a job. That's not a profession, that's just something to pay the bills.
[ QUOTE ]
Not all hobbies generate less effort and commitment than all professions, even when talking about specific people. I know many people that put more effort and commitment into their hobbies than their professions.
[/ QUOTE ]
True but to quantify one's commitment and passion, time is the only measuring stick you can realistically use. Time is finite. If you have a serious profession (or career) that requires full time attention from you, it's pretty difficult to commit the same amount of time to a hobby that you're passionate about, especially if you have a family. Unless of course, you choose to pass on sleeping.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the answer to that general question is equally applicable to amateurs and professionals alike, in most fields.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can think of at least one reason why someone would take a professional more seriously. If they didn't want the professional's advice, they wouldn't have gone into their office or seeked out their assistance in the first place. At least, I certainly don't.
Hi.
[ QUOTE ]
I come from an art background. I've been drawing and painting since I was 6 years old and I've taken countless art classes prior to college. I minored in Art history in college and I still continue my hobby to this day.
[/ QUOTE ]
Coincidentally, we have very similar backgrounds, at least in this one regard. But I am still struggling to understand your basic premise. By your standard, would a published poet who's primary source of income comes, not from his books, but from teaching, be an 'amateur' or a 'professional?' Would you automatically consider me to be a 'professional' artist simply because I have sold my work, even though I do not make my living that way? If so, would you also automatically assume my work to be superior to that of another artist who has not sold? Would any other criteria come into play there?
[ QUOTE ]
Why should they be offended if people overlook their work in favor of something else? Do they really have the right to complain?
[/ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, no. And neither does the professional.
[ QUOTE ]
Given that I never used an absolute in my statements, your argument holds no water no matter how many words you try to put into my mouth.
[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me, but I haven't put "words into your mouth". I used an exact quote. I'll do it again...
You stated, "Amateur hobbyists on the other hand do not publish their work for public evaluation very often."
Again, this simply is not true.
[ QUOTE ]
Sharing your work with friends, co-workers or family members doesn't really qualify as "public evaluation".
[/ QUOTE ]
No kidding. Never said it did. Who's putting words in someone's mouth now?
[ QUOTE ]
I think I already explained quite clearly [snip]
[/ QUOTE ]
No, really, you haven't. In fact, it strikes me that you've been trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth during this whole interchange.
[ QUOTE ]
Someone who doesn't do something very often does not mean that person never does it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Never said it did.
[ QUOTE ]
You used a bunch of websites to illustrate your point so I countered using the same reference source.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I used a phenomenon of internet behavior to prove my point. You singled out a single site. That's not "the same reference source" by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how much dancing you do to try to rationalize it.
[ QUOTE ]
Let me ask you this. How many people in your circle of family and friends actively publish their hobby for the public consumption?
[/ QUOTE ]
Almost all of them.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, please quote me as stating that amateurs have *never* shared their work with the open public.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, this is getting real tiring now.
First of all, let's carefully look at what I said...
"Nor does it preclude it, which was my point. You appear to think it does. It doesn't."
Note the use of appear. Note that it is there for a reason.
You appear to think that presenting work for public consumption indicates a motive other than personal enjoyment, and therefore, in such a case, the pursuit no longer qualifies as a hobby.
If that's not what you think, then I would suggest you go back and re-read some of your previous posts, because that is exactly what you seem to be implying on more than one occasion.
[ QUOTE ]
However, as an unpaid amateur performer of sorts, would you yell and scream at an audience because they're bored with your performance?
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, okay, I've told you a few times now that I'm not arguing about expectations, yet once again you address me as if I am. Ever hear of a Straw Man? If not, you should look it up, 'cuz you're real fond of using 'em.
Here's what I'm saying:
Amateur creators are fully capable of being as vested in their work as professional creators are. They can take it just as seriously, they can care about it just as much. Many can, and do, make their work publicly available.
That's what I'm saying.
So, if you're not disagreeing with that, then why are you arguing about it?
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
[ QUOTE ]
Coincidentally, we have very similar backgrounds, at least in this one regard. But I am still struggling to understand your basic premise. By your standard, would a published poet who's primary source of income comes, not from his books, but from teaching, be an 'amateur' or a 'professional?' Would you automatically consider me to be a 'professional' artist simply because I have sold my work, even though I do not make my living that way? If so, would you also automatically assume my work to be superior to that of another artist who has not sold? Would any other criteria come into play there?
[/ QUOTE ]
That poet would be a professional because he does recieve income for his work. Once you recieve money for your work, you cease being an amateur. Now, it is possible to have two simultaneous professions at one time, especially in the art world. An painter could also be a sculpter. An actor could also be a singer. So on and so forth. While being a professional does not mean your work is automatically better than that of the majority of amateurs, I do however believe that there's a good chance that it is. After all, you have succeeded in finding an audience to buy your work therefore establishing at least some credential. In contrast, you can only rely on an amateur's word when it comes to the quality behind their work.
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, no. And neither does the professional.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's where we disagree. I believe a professional has the right to question those who berate their work because it affects their reputation thus their livelihood. Amateurs do not have to deal with that kind of consequences.
Back to the OP:
[ QUOTE ]
First of all it's not so much that I am looking for validation that I made a good arc. I simply do not see the point in putting effort into making someone that no one is going to enjoy.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess that's where we differ, in two significant ways. One, to me it isn't an "effort", it is fun. Two, I put in that effort first and most importantly to create an arc that I enjoy myself. If other people play or enjoy it is secondary.
[ QUOTE ]
Again, this simply is not true.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, you can say it's not true as many times as you like but you've yet to present a single piece of credible evidence or statistic that suggests otherwise. Why is that?
[ QUOTE ]
No, I used a phenomenon of internet behavior to prove my point. You singled out a single site. That's not "the same reference source" by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how much dancing you do to try to rationalize it.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what you said and I quote:
Judging by the popularity of sites such as DeviantArt, youtube, and a countless slew of others, I'd say that's a perty big demographic.
It was *you* who lumped all of them into one huge demographic which I assumed to be web users (not an unreasonable assumption since you did say websites). Yet when I used Youtube as the most prominent example of that demographic, it is all the sudden an unacceptable reference source to represent the rest? Have you really explored the depths of Youtube user base? It is literally a microcasm of the society as a whole which includes people of every race, age range, sexual orientation, religious, and political affliation. You do realize that 70% of all Americans use the internet right? If that's not an acceptable sample group to base an argument on, I don't know what is.
[ QUOTE ]
Almost all of them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess those people around you are just immune to stage fright which affects 40% of the American population. Nevermind the fear of failure. What makes them so special when compared to everyone else I wonder.
[ QUOTE ]
You appear to think that presenting work for public consumption indicates a motive other than personal enjoyment, and therefore, in such a case, the pursuit no longer qualifies as a hobby.
[/ QUOTE ]
I said that if opening your work for the public consumption is your primary objective then it goes against the very definition of "hobby". As I've already said, a hobby is something that you do outside of your career and your own enjoyment is the primary motivation behind it. I never said you couldn't have any secondary motivations, only that self gratification is the primary one. This isn't open for interpretation, it is how the word "hobby" is defined by any dictionary you look up. If publishing it for others to evaluate is your primary motive then it would seem to suggest that you are seeking public acceptance. The hobby itself becomes less relevent as a result since frankly, any hobby would do as long as you get your 15 mins of fame.
[ QUOTE ]
Amateur creators are fully capable of being as vested in their work as professional creators are. They can take it just as seriously, they can care about it just as much. Many can, and do, make their work publicly available.
[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, the difference is in the degree and form of seriousness. I've already explained the difference no less than 3 to 4 times so I'm not going to repeat myself if you can't seem to comprehend the it.
[ QUOTE ]
While being a professional does not mean your work is automatically better than that of the majority of amateurs, I do however believe that there's a good chance that it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for your response. I believe I understand your point of view a little better now. I completely disagree with it, but I think I get it. As far as I can tell, you rather tightly equate some level of commercial success with quality, based on the statement quoted above. That's your option, of course, and I doubt I'll be changing your mind, but I see no basis for the opinion. There are way too many variables that go into what makes one work sell and another not, many of which have nothing to do with the quality of the work. Which is not to say that I think it's all dumb luck, by any means. I very much like to think that quality *does* count; but the sale is not, in and of itself, much of an indicator.
[ QUOTE ]
In contrast, you can only rely on an amateur's word when it comes to the quality behind their work.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure I get that. I suppose I could take their word for it, or I could view/read/hear the work and judge for myself.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's where we disagree. I believe a professional has the right to question those who berate their work because it affects their reputation thus their livelihood. Amateurs do not have to deal with that kind of consequences.
[/ QUOTE ]
By that logic, no published author should ever expect a bad review, even if he can't write his way out of a paper bag? It does happen. Trust me, I sold many, many bad books, back in my retail days, and read even worse gallies; some of them really made me appreciate how hard an editor's job must be. Actually, as I read your statement over, its suggests to me that you are not so much "tightly equating," as I said above, but actually giving somewhat more weight to the financial aspect, and giving short shrift to the quality of the work produced. While I still do not believe that there is any right to expectation on the part of the author (artist, singer, etc.), I also think the work should be judged on its own merits, regardless of whether or not it's paying the rent. Do you disagree?
EDIT: I had inadvertently dropped the last sentence.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as I can tell, you rather tightly equate some level of commercial success with quality, based on the statement quoted above. That's your option, of course, and I doubt I'll be changing your mind, but I see no basis for the opinion. There are way too many variables that go into what makes one work sell and another not, many of which have nothing to do with the quality of the work. Which is not to say that I think it's all dumb luck, by any means. I very much like to think that quality *does* count; but the sale is not, in and of itself, much of an indicator.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, to me commercial success is a important indicator for one reason alone. If someone is successfully selling his work then it means that he has struck a chord with some of his target audience. Of course there are other methods to judge the quality of one's work such as word of mouth and critical reviews. In the end though, all those other methods do end up contributing to more people flocking to that particular professional which can easily turn into financial success. Here's something else to keep in mind. Negative press is circulated far more frequently than positive ones. If the quality of one's work is sub-standard, the word tends to spread around quickly and potential customers will avoid him like a plague. Few professionals I know are willing to risk that kind of bad publicity and those that do generally do not enjoy financial success.
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure I get that. I suppose I could take their word for it, or I could view/read/hear the work and judge for myself.
[/ QUOTE ]
I meant that much of the time, you really don't have any assurances about an amateur's quality of work besides taking his word for it. Generally speaking, professionals have at least some background (licenses, previous works, degree, professional references, reviews) which you can research to gauge whether he is qualified or if he would suit your interest. With most amateurs you don't really know what you're going to get unless you already have references that can provide you with the appropriate information.
[ QUOTE ]
While I still do not believe that there is any right to expectation on the part of the author (artist, singer, etc.), I also think the work should be judged on its own merits, regardless of whether or not it's paying the rent. Do you disagree?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes that's true but judging the quality of any given piece of work is very subjective, heavily based upon the individual. This brings me back to my original assertion that commercial success is a good indicator of whether that author has successfully reached his core audience. If his core audience finds the quality of his work to be acceptable enough to purchase, what you or I think of his work is irrelevent to those people.
[ QUOTE ]
You know, you can say it's not true as many times as you like but you've yet to present a single piece of credible evidence
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I did.
[ QUOTE ]
That's not what you said
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is.
[ QUOTE ]
It was *you* who lumped all of them into one huge demographic
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. Hence: phenomenon of internet behavior.
Jeezus.
[ QUOTE ]
If that's not an acceptable sample group to base an argument on, I don't know what is.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, quite clearly you don't.
[ QUOTE ]
I guess those people around you are just immune to stage fright which affects 40% of the American population. Nevermind the fear of failure. What makes them so special when compared to everyone else I wonder.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but just what does stage fright have to do with making your work publicly available if you're an artist, writer or musician? Especially when it comes to the internet?
I'm a creator. Many of the people I interact with are creators. Some are professionals, others are amateurs. All of them are passionate about their art. Of the amateurs, almost all of them have made their work openly available to the public, usually via the internet, as do their fellow enthusiasts. It's become a commonplace practice.
Sorry if that's inconvenient to your worldview.
[ QUOTE ]
I said that if opening your work for the public consumption is your primary objective then it goes against the very definition of "hobby".
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you. That's what I've been disagreeing with. But then you've turned around and claimed it's not what you meant.
[ QUOTE ]
As I've already said, a hobby is something that you do outside of your career and your own enjoyment is the primary motivation behind it.
[/ QUOTE ]
And as I have already said, that enjoyment can be derived, in part, from sharing that work publicly. And, in fact, depending on the work, sharing it in such a way is intrinsic to that kind of work. It doesn't make it any less a hobby.
[ QUOTE ]
I never said you couldn't have any secondary motivations, only that self gratification is the primary one.
[/ QUOTE ]
You keep trying to separate "personal gratification" from "gratification from your work being well received," as if that's relevant and as if one must be prioritized over the other.
You can be motivated by both or neither, and the latter most certainly does not disqualify the pursuit as a hobby, whether it's of lesser, greater, or equal importance to the personal satisfaction gleaned from the creation process itself. You're reading something into the concept of "hobby" that isn't there. Which is something I've pointed out before. Read your dictionary again.
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't open for interpretation, it is how the word "hobby" is defined by any dictionary you look up.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm sorry, it's not.
[ QUOTE ]
If publishing it for others to evaluate is your primary motive then it would seem to suggest that you are seeking public acceptance.
[/ QUOTE ]
It could also suggest that your pleasure is derived, in whole or in part, by creating something that others enjoy and is well received.
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, the difference is in the degree and form of seriousness.
[/ QUOTE ]
While you're referring to your dictionary again, please also look up "degree". The "difference in degree" you've cited more than once would seem to indicate that, yes, you do believe that a professional is, as a default, more serious about what they create than an amateur is.
If that's what you're saying, we disagree. If it's not what you're saying, then, again, why are you arguing?
Oh, and one last thing... as someone who no less than 3 times tried to debate a point with me that I wasn't talking about at all, and that I clearly stated I wasn't interested in, you're in no position to criticize anyone else's comprehension.
But thanks for the input. It's duly noted and filed accordingly.
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
Okay, that was enlightening. I believe I have zeroed in on the source of our basic disagreement, and it revolves around the word "quality." While I do agree that successfully reaching one's core audience is a measure of success, it is not, in my mind, necessarily a measure of quality, unless we're talking about the quality of one's marketing. Which leads me to the statement that "judging the quality of any given piece of work is very subjective." Indeed, the act of deciding what I like and what I don't like is largely subjective. But I would refer you back to one of your previous posts...
[ QUOTE ]
Creative works still have a lot of techniques behind it. It's the same for singing, instruments, acting, drawing, painting, or writing. For example, painting requires an understanding of colors (complementary/contrasting), brush stroke techniques and the proper mixture/application of the medium (oil, watercolor, acrylic, etc). Someone who is completely passionate about painting but have no idea how to apply those techniques properly is not going to produce a good painting in the end. These techniques I'm referring to are usually attained by training and repetition which can be said for any profession.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with that, for the most part. There are objective criteria that can be applied when judging the actual "quality" of the work, not just the "do I like it" factor. I suppose the point I am trying to make -- and taking a distressingly long time at -- is that I think the work's "quality" is something unique and inherent to it and entirely independent of it's maker's level of popularity or commercial success.
And, although I am not entirely satisfied with the way the words came out of my head and onto the page/screen, I am going to close there, because I'm afraid I have been complicit in the running of the OP's original topic totally off the rails.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I did.
[/ QUOTE ]
You did? Let's rehash. You used the "phenomenon of internet behavior" as evidence when in fact, it isn't because the statistics behind the most prominent website in that example clearly refutes what you're claiming. That's as close as you ever got when it comes to supplying some statistics to back your claim unless you consider your personal experience is somehow a form of factual evidence. Sorry but the sample size is far too small to qualify. I have personal experiences as well with people in my circle and I don't see what you see.
[ QUOTE ]
Correct. Hence: phenomenon of internet behavior.
Jeezus.
[/ QUOTE ]
So it is ok for you to use a "phenomenon of internet behavior" to prove your point but it isn't ok for me to dig deeper into that phenomenon to dispute your so called proof? Sure Youtube is only one website out of many but it also has far more active users than any of the others which coincidentally provides a large enough and diverse enough sample size for me to analyze. I fail to see why you can't comprehend this since it abides by all the requirements behind statistical inference.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but just what does stage fright have to do with making your work publicly available if you're an artist, writer or musician? Especially when it comes to the internet?
[/ QUOTE ]
Until you provide some data that supports your opinion (as I have), your point regarding sharing over the internet is irrelevent. In terms of people sharing their work with the public in person whether it is giving a speech, singing, acting, dancing or poetry, stage fright is a real deterrance for a lot of people. I don't think you understand just how serious this phobia is for a lot of people.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a creator. Many of the people interact with are creators. Some are professionals, other are amateurs. All of them are passionate about their art. Of the amateurs, almost all of them have made their work openly available to the public, usually via the internet, as do their fellow enthusiasts. It's become a commonplace practice.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you know these people by business association or is it some kind of social networking relationship? If so then this particular evidence isn't particularly compelling. I'm talking about the general populace, not a specific group of people who share a common interest. It's like me saying that most people must enjoy reading books since everyone in my book club loves it. It's a skewed sample group, period.
[ QUOTE ]
And as I have already said, that enjoyment can be derived, in part, from sharing that work publicly. And, in fact, depending on the work, sharing it in such a way is intrinsic to that kind of work. It doesn't make it any less a hobby.
[/ QUOTE ]
When public acceptance becomes more of a priority than the pleasure derived from creating the work itself, the hobby starts to lose its value. You start changing your style so it'll suit the public taste since that is more important to you. It will slowly become mainstream in order it'll appeal to more people. So yes, I believe that for a true hobbyist, maintaining that uniqueness even in the face of potential public criticism is very important. Otherwise you're just a sell out who care more about what other people say than the pleasure of creating the work itself.
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm sorry, it's not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dictionary.com: an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation.
Webster: a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.
Thesaurus.com: leisure activity or pleasurable pastime.
Cambridge: an activity which someone does for pleasure when they are not working.
Note that all of them define hobby as something outside of your profession that you derive pleasure and enjoyment from. If your most important priority lies in whether *other* people accept your work positively, just what part of making it more compliant to the tastes of others is relaxing? Isn't that putting more undue stress on yourself? Hobby isn't suppose to be stressful. It isn't suppose to be work. That's what makes it go against the very definition of hobby.
[ QUOTE ]
While you're referring to your dictionary again, please also look up "degree". The "difference in degree" you've cited more than once would seem to indicate that, yes, you do believe that a professional is, as a default, more serious about what they create than an amateur is.
[/ QUOTE ]
In terms of being more serious about the quality of their work and how it will reflect upon them, yes, that is what I'm saying. As I've already mentioned a dozen times, financial consequence is a reality for any professional. If it isn't important than you wouldn't see so many companies and professionals putting special emphasis on customer satisfaction. Can you say the same for amateur hobbyists?
[ QUOTE ]
because I'm afraid I have been complicit in the running of the OP's original topic totally off the rails.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, I don't think you have. I think all of this is quite closely related to the subjects broached by the OP.
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
[ QUOTE ]
You did? Let's rehash. You used the "phenomenon of internet behavior" as evidence when in fact, it isn't
[/ QUOTE ]
In fact, it is. There are countless number of sites where significant numbers of amateurs are routinely making their works available to the public. That clearly demonstrates that a significant number of amateurs are routinely making their works available to the public.
I don't know what else to tell you. It's simply a reality, right there for you to see if you were to bother to look. I'm sorry, but you haven't refuted anything.
[ QUOTE ]
Sure Youtube is only one website out of many
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. And that's the end of that.
[ QUOTE ]
Until you provide some data that supports your opinion (as I have)...
[/ QUOTE ]
Your "data" has been completely unsupported, so, please, spare me.
[ QUOTE ]
...your point regarding sharing over the internet is irrelevent.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh huh.
[ QUOTE ]
So you know these people by business association or is it some kind of social networking relationship? If so then this particular evidence isn't particularly compelling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm. Is there something in particular particularly wrong with you?
No, seriously, are you just a troll? Is that what you're doing here? Trolling?
You asked: "How many people in your circle of family and friends actively publish their hobby for the public consumption?"
I answered. Almost all of them.
You then made some snarky remark, inserted "stage fright" (???) into the dialogue, and insinuated doubt about my statement. "What makes them so special when compared to everyone else I wonder," you said.
So I explained the situation in greater detail.
And now you're trying to turn that into a debate point to refute and discard, as if I presented it as "evidence"?
Excuse me?
You brought it up!
Y'know what? I'm done with this, and I'm sorry I wasted my time on it. You don't seem to be interested in a dialogue. It seems you just want to "win"... whatever it is you think you're winning. Sorry, but that's not why I participate on these forums. Find someone else to play these games with.
Frankly, I should've known better. Shame on me.
Oh, and you have the audacity to end your post with:
[ QUOTE ]
In terms of being more serious about the quality of their work and how it will reflect upon them, yes, that is what I'm saying.
[/ QUOTE ]
@.@
So, I was right the first time.
Un-frickin'-believable.
Keep your "statistics". I'll stick with reality.
Moving on now. Have a nice day.
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the only difference between 'professional' & 'amateur' is the cash. I've got a lot of friends that sing and play music as a 'hobby'. A few of them play 'professionally', but when they're not up on that stage, they spend many hours playing for the pure enjoyment of making music with friends. Some of those friends that are only amateurs are as good if not better than some that play professionally. Just because they're not pros, it doesn't mean they are any less talented at what they do. The one thing that they all have in common is their talent and love for music. I don't make a distinction between those that play for money and those that don't. They all love to play music and are very good at what they do for fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure just what it is you're suggesting here. Are you really trying to tell me that in general, amateurs and professionals have little difference in terms of the quality of their work?
Hypothetically speaking, do you take law advice from a buddy who read up on some law books instead of an actual lawyer? Do you take medical diagnosis from Yahoo! answers made by some pre-med student instead of an actual doctor? Do you take financial advise from a family member who dabbles in the stock market instead of a fully licensed Financial Advisor? Yet when it comes to the various fields of art, the seperation between professionals and amateurs is all the sudden less relevent? I would certainly hope that's not what you're claiming.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK, that was one of the strangest analogies that I would have ever expected in response to my statement. Since I was referring to another art form ('art' being the key word here) and not a 'hard science' as a reference, your answer is completely irrelevant to anything that I said. After reading this whole thread, it doesn't surprise me that you seem to enjoy making irrelevant comparisons to try to make your point sound plausible.
Since your assumption (Do I need to explain what happens when we assume?) is that someone who gets paid for their work (i.e. is a 'professional' by your definition) and is therefore inherently better at what they do for that simple fact alone, let me give you a few examples to challenge your 'assumption'.
Amateurs: Paul Potts, Susan Boyle (both can be seen on youtube from Britain's Got Talent)
Professionals: Tiny Tim, Bob Dylan (great writer, crappy singer), (random) wedding singers that charge people heaps of cash for their crappy voices to be heard
I rest my case.
No AV/EBs Deal with The Devil's Pawn-207266 Slash DeMento and the Stolen Weapons-100045 Meet the Demon Spawn-151099 Feedback
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it is. There are countless number of sites where significant numbers of amateurs are routinely making their works available to the public. That clearly demonstrates that a significant number of amateurs are routinely making their works available to the public.
I don't know what else to tell you. It's simply a reality, right there for you to see if you were to bother to look. I'm sorry, but you haven't refuted anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
Everything you said here have not refuted my claim that amateur hobbyists don't share their work with the public very often. A significant number do yes but that does not equate to "most" as you are so keen on implying.
[ QUOTE ]
Your "data" has been completely unsupported, so, please, spare me.
[/ QUOTE ]
So statistics are irrelevent now. I guess I just pulled those numbers out of my anus even though they are all *real* statistical data. I guess you're just not good with numbers in general. By your logic, economists or scientists shouldn't even bother with using statistical data as the basis for their research since well, they are completely unsupported in your deranged little world. Whatever man, whatever.
[ QUOTE ]
So I explained the situation in greater detail.
And now you're trying to turn that into a debate point to refute and discard, as if I presented it as "evidence"?
[/ QUOTE ]
I asked a question. You answered it. I responded with the fact that your clique of associates does not represent a balanced and unbiased sample group because of their pre-existing conditions and interests. Sorry if you can't handle that fact.
[ QUOTE ]
Keep your "statistics". I'll stick with reality.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most of the reality which you know of today IS based on statistics, not whatever non-sense you want to conjure up in your mind. Yeah you're right, I'm done with this. There's no point in debating with someone who thinks that being a professional doesn't mean that you're held more accountable for the quality of your work and that amateurs can achieve the same quality and commitment just as easily. Maybe you should revamp our entire education system since apparently, all those specialized professional training and licensing means little in your mind. In fact, why do we even bother to have professionals for anything in the first place since according to you, so many amateurs are capable of doing what they do just as well if not better. Absurdity. You have a nice day too.
[ QUOTE ]
OK, that was one of the strangest analogies that I would have ever expected in response to my statement. Since I was referring to another art form ('art' being the key word here) and not a 'hard science' as a reference, your answer is completely irrelevant to anything that I said.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I've already explained previously, whether it is "hard science" or "art form", they all share something in common which is technique. Without techniques, you'd be hard pressed to get to results you're looking for. Most professionals go through years of schooling and training to hone their techniques. Not that it is the only way to acquire techniques but it usually is the best way since you're already learning from someone who is already trained instead of trying to figure things out on your own.
Frankly, law and finance can hardly be considered to be hard science in the first place. Law is an extension of the art form that is rhetorics which requires quite a bit of creativity and the ability to think on your feet. Finance is not just about crunching numbers. Geo-political influence, investor psychology, and consumer demand are all factors that financial professionals needs to take into account in their line of work. Those things are all based upon the study of human nature and psychology which relies as much on interpretation or instinct as actual hard facts.
[ QUOTE ]
Since your assumption (Do I need to explain what happens when we assume?) is that someone who gets paid for their work (i.e. is a 'professional' by your definition) and is therefore inherently better at what they do for that simple fact alone, let me give you a few examples to challenge your 'assumption'.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I've already clarified several times in this thread that I believe that your average professional does produce higher quality work than your average amateur hobbyist. I never discounted the fact that some amateurs can attain or even surpass his professional counterpart but that is the exception, not the norm.
[ QUOTE ]
Amateurs: Paul Potts, Susan Boyle (both can be seen on youtube from Britain's Got Talent)
[/ QUOTE ]
How many people auditioned for these shows? 100,000? 200,000? A few diamonds in the rough does not disprove the fact that the overwhelming majority of amateur singers can not reach the level of your average professional recording artist. It is an insult to professionals of every conceivable field by claiming otherwise.
[ QUOTE ]
Professionals: Tiny Tim, Bob Dylan (great writer, crappy singer), (random) wedding singers that charge people heaps of cash for their crappy voices to be heard
[/ QUOTE ]
Crappy according to whom? You may state that they're crappy as an opinion but let's not mistaken that for a fact. Apparently some people do think there is quality behind the work of Bob Dylan and those crappy wedding singers otherwise they wouldn't have been paid to do what they do. Who are you to tell them that their taste is crap and that Susan Boyle is better?
Plenty of people also think rap is crappy because they feel rappers don't use the enough of the traditional vocal techniques. Yet, there are plenty of others who love them for their improvisation, rhyme/beat scheme, and wordplay. Who's right? No one is.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes that's true but judging the quality of any given piece of work is very subjective, heavily based upon the individual. This brings me back to my original assertion that commercial success is a good indicator of whether that author has successfully reached his core audience. If his core audience finds the quality of his work to be acceptable enough to purchase, what you or I think of his work is irrelevent to those people.
[/ QUOTE ]
My apologies at jumping into a debate that I haven't been a part of, but this paragraph jumped out at me.
Commercial success is often based on who has the best marketing and most advertising dollars, not on who has the best quality product or most talent.
As you said, it's subjective. There are a lot of famous people with little or no talent, just good PR. There are a lot of "unknowns" that never see the light of day because they don't have the right contacts or marketing resources -- or simply are not interested in fame and fortune.
You've probably seen more responses on this (the OP) than you thought you would. 
I disagree that MA has been trashed by the lazy masses. In a way you are right and I can see your point. The devs presented MA as a means for the storytellers to create stories for others to play. They said they were removing defeat badges as a safeguard against farming.
However, from day one the devs have always been pitching their wares to the farmers, and by habit or whatever they included a ton of openings and incentives for farming. And not just farming but obvious exploits as well. (Exploiters are not the same as farmers, but the distinctions can blur.)
I think it's pretty clear that Paragon Studios is experiencing some sort of difficulty with internal leadership, responsibilities relating to quality, and some developers have a poor knowledge of the game they're working on. Something along those lines has got to be the explanation for what's been happening. The turbulence in the development team has created some turbulence for the players, but hopefully they'll get it all straightened out.
i15 is bringing a tagging feature intended to help guide players to content. That may aid story-oriented players in finding story-oriented content. But it seems some large percentage of players - maybe 70% (???) - are completely uninterested in story. So don't expect MA story content to be as popular as other forms of content (basically farming).
Why doesn't CoH/CoV have more players interested in story? I think part of it is that the original game handled story poorly, and with the exception of the introduction of cutscenes in CoV in 2005, no features have been added to improve storytelling in the game. Also, few if any patches have been made to improve continuity; the patches have all been related to game mechanics. When it comes to priorities, the devs serve farmers and action-oriented players first, and story-oriented players get the bare minimum of attention. So, if there are potential story-oriented players out there, they have little incentive to play this game due to the lack of story-oriented features. Story just isn't an attraction here. Some might argue about it, but that's the way I see it.
As for coming across players with level 50s and even level 50 epics who have no idea how to play ... they're just noobs. There will always be noobs. We have to adjust, and accept that the level of a player's toon and whether it is epic or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether they can play. The only guideline will be the veteran badges, and even that is just a guide, since sometimes multiple people share a single account, and sometimes old players create new accounts.
As for the disgruntlement about people liking your arcs, even among people looking for stories there is a HUGE range of preferences and expectations. All you can do is make arcs of the type that you like yourself, and hopefully other people who like the same thing will find your material.
The MA is new. I imagine that over time we might see better player organization in relation to the MA. For example, if farmers have already organized and selected Atlas as their venue of choice, then maybe the story-oriented lowbie players should gather in Galaxy, Steel, and KR. Mid-level story-oriented players can gather in Bricks, Talos, or RWZ. Top level story players can gather in FF, while the farming players gather in PI. It's not that hard to figure it out, and eventually we'll all be following the ant trails to the hangouts for players with our particular interests.
As for your friend with the TF arc, what I've found is that many story-oriented people solo AE content, and those friends who gather together tend to go for the more casual story fare or they play each other's arcs. PUGs tend to be for farming. So I'm not surprised that at this stage it is difficult to gather teams for running a TF arc. It's just the way it is at this point, but hopefully it will eventually change.
I'd like to make a few TF arcs myself, but I'm waiting till we get more than 3 slots, since in my opinion a true TF arc would require 10 missions.
Once again I feel the need to express my complete disreguard to the numerous complaints about how pple are using MA. To be quite blunt.. WHO CARES. I play my way and u play ur way, if u don't like the way I play then don't do it, but what right do pple have to critize my way of gameplay. I'm a firm believer in the old saying "to each his own". Which in case u don't know means each person has the own way of doing things. As far as the voting on arcs subject..... once again is it really that serious? U want mass recog. for ur stories then why don't u write a book, or even contact the City Scoop about having ur story featured in there, there are plenty of fanfiction sites available... find one. I'm sorry if this post offends anyone for that is not my intention. I'm just so sick and damn tired of reading forum posts in hopes of learning something new about the game and having to skim through 100s of whiney pple complaining about farms. IF U DON'T LIKE IT DON'T DO IT, BUT DON'T JUDGE PPLE THAT DO. Its that simple. Got a problem? Either keep it to urself or take it up with the devs. Lets return the forum to its original purpose plse... a place for pple to discuss the workings of the game... not a bitchfest.
[ QUOTE ]
The hard truth is that not everyone plays games like this for the story. They play it for "fun", and what aspects of a game are fun is wildly subjective. There are people who think that blowing through a large outdoor map of mobs is a better time than a well-crafted story with cool-looking custom mobs, and they'll rate it as such.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, and every farmer I've ever teamed with has run these things once and said, "Wow, who knew I could get from level 14 to level 50 in one afternoon? Gosh, all I was doing was having fun, and look what it got me. Neat!"
Farmers and PLers want to win. They want to win in the easiest, quickest way possible, preferably from the moment they enter the game. The only "fun" involved is winning, otherwise we wouldn't see farm maps with notes saying "I changed the mob makeup so the mobs wouldn't be so much of a challenge."
If you're going to insist on the value of your play style, at least show a trace of honesty.
[ QUOTE ]
Right, and every farmer I've ever teamed with has run these things once and said, "Wow, who knew I could get from level 14 to level 50 in one afternoon? Gosh, all I was doing was having fun, and look what it got me. Neat!"
[/ QUOTE ]
You play with strange farmers. The ones I know are already level 50.
Farmer and PLer are not the same thing, though they may use the same mechanical activities to get what they want. A Farmer is not necessarily out to "win". I play this game almost exclusively on existing level 50s, and I don't PL other people. I just enjoy running around and kicking [censored] as a way to relax and forget about real life for a while.
Thanks, though, for projecting moronic value judgements on me. I'll be happy to return the favor.
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to insist on the value of your play style, at least show a trace of honesty.
[/ QUOTE ]
Value? Where did I claim there was any "value"? I claimed it was enjoyable. I don't give a damn what you find "valuable" in the game, I'm not playing it for you.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
Value? Where did I claim there was any "value"? I claimed it was enjoyable. I don't give a damn what you find "valuable" in the game, I'm not playing it for you.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
I wish people would be as reasonable as to follow that trade of thought.
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, we're talking about creative works. Not law, not medicine, not finance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Creative works still have a lot of techniques behind it. It's the same for singing, instruments, acting, drawing, painting, or writing. For example, painting requires an understanding of colors (complementary/contrasting), brush stroke techniques and the proper mixture/application of the medium (oil, watercolor, acrylic, etc). Someone who is completely passionate about painting but have no idea how to apply those techniques properly is not going to produce a good painting in the end. These techniques I'm referring to are usually attained by training and repetition which can be said for any profession. That was my point.
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, we're not comparing people who take X seriously and people who have only a passing interest, or limited experience, in it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course we are talking about that. A professional does what he does on a daily basis. It is their career. They have a massive vested interest in being good at their job and to produce quality work because otherwise, they'd be out on the streets. Many professionals also spend time outside of work honing their crafts. Would amateur hobbyists with a full time career be as motivated or can afford to spend that much time on their craft? Perhaps a few but definately not all.
[ QUOTE ]
We're talking about people who pursue X avidly for profit and those who pursue it avidly out of passion for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Even if the professionals are getting paid a lot of money, they can still be passionate in their work. The passion depends on the individual, not their chosen line of profession or hobby. The pursuit of financial security and the pursuit of personal passion are not mutually exclusive events.
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, would I take the advice of a doctor who's been doing volunteer work for 30 years over one who's been getting paid for it for 2? Probably, yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you'd be taking advice from a professional. As you said before, the difference between a professional and amateur is money. In this case, the doctor did get paid at one time during his careers thus qualifying him as a professional. Nextly, to practice on a voluntary basis, the doctor would still need a physician license and be registered with the state medical board. That's a "professional" license and a "professional" regulatory agency.
[ QUOTE ]
As I understand it, the implication of your assertions continues to be that professional work is inherently of a higher quality than amateur work... that an amateur can't possibly be as vested, or more vested, in their work than a professional is (I'm afraid your analogies betray this slanted view).
[/ QUOTE ]
Professionals, while not always perfect, generally do perform better than amateurs regardless of line of work. In the field of art and performing, look no further than the dozens of reality talent shows that have popped up everywhere in recent years. How many people audition for these shows? Hundreds of thousands if not millions. Many of them can be very passionate about their hobby/talent but how many actually make it through the cut based on the quality of their performance? Not many. You can't say that "amateurs are often as good as professionals" when in reality one amateur out of thousands may be of actual professional quality.
Do you make it a habit to hire amateurs to do all the work that needs to be done in your life whether it is accounting, home improvement, car maintenance and so on? If you consistantly hire professionals to do those things for you then you've already proven my point yourself.
[ QUOTE ]
And, frankly, you need look no further than MA for evidence of that. I've already played a handful of arcs that were simply better constructed than much of the regular content in the game, which someone was paid to write.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's your opinion, not a fact. I could play the same arcs and find it lacking. It does not qualify as evidence because you are a sample size of one.