112 réponses à ce sujet

[M A F I A]

Terraflare wrote...

That is precisely the point why I wrote this post! Think about it this way - it is common knowledge that a large proportion of what you learn/work so hard for in undergraduate/graduate school becomes utterly meaningless upon starting your career. 99% of the time doctors will NEVER see that rare disease they tried so hard to remember in med school, and non-professional careers are even more so like this. Now consider that before University, a person is made to go through (on average) 10-12 years of basic/foundational education, that one may argue is not very helpful at all when taking a big picture view. For example, I have all but forgotten the basics physics concepts i learnt in high school, and the obscure quotes I was forced to learn for literature exams. 

Does this mean I should not have been made to go through them at all? Did this education "hold me back"? Many academics understand that education is simply a very very costly, time consuming and expensive signalling instrument. Years are long and work is hard because this sieves out the people who dont really want to try. Whether you do a engineering course, a degree in Middle Eastern history, or an Economics course, rarely matters to employers (bar professional requirements). Employers are MUCH more keen to know if the person they hire is of LOW or HIGH quality, which can only be signalled by "jumping through the hoops" and obtaining that top degree. Is a person with a top degree neccessarily more capable than one with a middle degree? No. But on average, he will be. If the middle guy was actually high quality, why does he only have a middle degree? It would take time for me to find out, time that I can save by simply rejecting middle guy and picking top guy.

I'm sorry but your reasoning does not necessarily apply to all real world scenarios. Take my case for instance, I graduated in law 3 months ago with a medium-high grade (let's say 8/10) which is not impressive by itself, but I got the best possible grades in criminal law (the branch I want to practise as a lawyer) and when I'll be interviewed by a criminal law firm they'd rather check my criminal law grades and my criminal law paper rather than checking the average of my grades, there for I stand more chances than a guy that had better average grades but lower criminal law grades.

[The Protheans]

Kicking people is stupid, people won't learn if they don't get raped over and over again.
But by god if no one is a Salarian Engineer I am leaving and oh sure you won't boot me if I use my lvl 1 Engineer after I promote him.

Though I can cancel this effect by switching to the lvl 1 just before the match starts and when everyone but me readies up, I tried this once and it worked even though someone voted to kick me without stopping the countdown.

[paincanbefun]

M A F I A wrote...

I'm sorry but your reasoning does not necessarily apply to all real world scenarios. Take my case for instance, I graduated in law 3 months ago with a medium-high grade (let's say 8/10) which is not impressive by itself, but I got the best possible grades in criminal law (the branch I want to practise as a lawyer) and when I'll be interviewed by a criminal law firm they'd rather check my criminal law grades and my criminal law paper rather than checking the average of my grades, there for I stand more chances than a guy that had better average grades but lower criminal law grades.

i think he means that "hoop jumping" is useful in the absense of all other data.  a more usual example is that grad school performance is more useful to employers than undergrad.  i don't think this changes the main argument.  in the grouping lobby, the available data is analogous to a performance measurement everyone has access to, in your case you have data in addition.  however, if your employer was observing a hundred candidates with the same criminal law grades, they well might look at grade average to filter initial results, which is another example of hoop jumping.

[phoneixxineohp]

Your post reminds me of Joseph Schumpeter explaining economic concepts verbally without numbers or graphs and applying the concept to a seemingly non-economic situation. In truth,there is an economic situation (time and risk) and the actions of humans. Nice job.

[Nickle]

marine biology major here
something smells fishy...

[RomanowRomanow]

to me economics relate to "cash [credits] to time ratio", so failing gold run at the end of wave 3 is better then bronze [same cash but faster], failing at the end of wave 6 is better than silver[same cash but faster] and failing at the end of wave 10 is 4x bronez [average 15 minutes] or 2x silver [average 25 minutes] and no gold match i was in alsted longer than 38, make it 39 minutes. geth absement is boring as hell but it also gives biggest chance of making it to waves 3,6 and 10 even with quitting people, leechers and noobs. So I ask: Why the hell would I do anything else than geth farming if i need to spend 1 200 000 [approximately] to get 1 weapon upgrade? And failing at wave 3 is way better than sitting in the lobby and kicking players, waiting for "purrfect" game and wasting precious time

[paincanbefun]

The Protheans wrote...
Kicking people is stupid, people won't learn if they don't get raped over and over again.

this is an example of what confuses me.  especially if i restate it as "kicking ME is a stupid thing for YOU to do, since there's no benifit to ME unless YOU don't kick me."

this is not directed at you, protheans.  i'm sure you play just fine, i'm simply restating for clarity.

i agree that people will not get better until they play more games.  i am surprised that some people expect others to bear any cost (including the cost of risk) so that they get better.  there is a very low cost and a high benifit to me in kicking a suspicious player (and avoid risking the waste of a half hour) who can be easily replaced with a less risky looking investment.

imagine a business person saying "you should buy my cr*ppy used car [lose a few games as i learn how to play] because otherwise i'll never get enough capital to buy better cars to sell [play well/have a high n7/high level characters/high level weapons].  besides, even though this car looks cr*ppy, you have no way of knowing that under the hood it isn't a marvel of custom engineering [people can play well even though their loadout/n7 level/weapon level looks suspicious]."  the statements are all true, it's just that none of them is a good reason to actually do the suggested behavior.

i am NOT saying that we should personally behave like selfish d*cks- and i don't think that economic reasoning says this either.  i AM saying that there is no reason to expect non-selfish behavior from strangers, so we should prepare for it and not get angry when strangers behave towards us in ways that are selfish but entirely rational.

@Terraflare:  i see your point.  if this is true, the most helpful thing we can do is not further encourage an inflated perception of value in their product.  that way, if they adjust to clear pricing signals, they might begin to make positive transactions- and then the rest of us will bear a lower collateral cost from all the QQ.

Modifié par paincanbefun, 01 mai 2012 - 03:15 .

[Terraflare]

@MAFIA: True, but I didn't mean that. If you were to compare yourself, with a hypothetical twin who had the same Criminal Law qualifications as you had, but did not go through 12 years of formal schooling prior (for whatever reason), then you see that the 12 years of additional formal schooling, while not adding to his credentials, signalled his willingness/determination to stick through them, hence making him a better choice over you. Of course, it might go the other way - he was a genius who got a degree without schooling.

@phoneixxineohp: Thanks for your kind comment. Economists have theories and models that work on some very basic assumptions that the average, human being sees the world as they do - without translating the equations into common sense situations, no one will understand what they are getting at.

@RomanoRomano: Yes, it all boils down to individual preferences and how they weight their cost of waiting and kicking versus starting and risking. Many will argue over the details - whether a common 'benchmark' should exist for gauging people by, but no agreement will come off it. I hope that more people understand that this subjectivity with regards to kicking is therefore not personal, its just the draw of the market.

@paincanbefun: Exactly, couldnt have put it better than myself. The sum of all 3 statements do not necessitate anyone actually acting on them - cost and benefit accrues solely to the host/room, and if they decide that your cost (including risk), exceeds your expected and uncertain benefit, then kicking you is the only rational action. Regarding your suggestion, the trouble is that acting out of self interest in this scenario is essentially a 1 stage game - there are no additional costs (aside from the time cost of kicking and waiting) that may serve as an incentive to prevent people from kicking. In a normal multi-stage Nash game applied on this situation, people who kick repeatedly using unfair benchmarks (subjective), will eventually be priced out of the market - they themselves may be kicked from other games for unsportsmanlike behaviour, or they may be named and shamed (interesting phenomenon that crops up from time to time, that is crushed by forum rules).

[phoneixxineohp]

An aspiring criminal attorney with an economics education. University of Chicago?

[paincanbefun]

i've never actually studied economics, so i had to look up "nash game". i am familiar with the prisoners' dilemma.

personally- and i have a high n7 and level 10 weapons, so my observations may be biased- i observe a high number of positive transactions with the current system. the cost that romanoromano mentions seems adequate to me to encourage sufficient risk-taking for the play vs group selection times to be satisfactory. as long as i don't see stagnation, it wouldn't occur to me to lower investment costs. so, people who choose to pay high investment costs by being very picky about teammates don't seem unfair or even wasteful to me, and the peace of mind they purchase with their selection time seems a legitimate thing to value.

also, if forum feedback allowed a second game stage, i'm not sure that enough people view "picky teammate" as a negative trait that a reputation as picky would encourage people to invest more freely.  other negative traits would definitely be reduced.

i do think it's very interesting that they try to eliminate one kind of bad behavior by preventing us from talking about each other and as a consequence they make most bad behavior in general much easier although i don't see any way around this.

Modifié par paincanbefun, 01 mai 2012 - 04:15 .

[paincanbefun]

oops.  double post

Modifié par paincanbefun, 01 mai 2012 - 04:15 .

[darkblade]

Played 7 gold games this morning, failed all of them. Didnt care. people complain about wasting their time self contradictory argument, youre playing a video game youre wasting time by default.

[Terraflare]

Necro'd thread for swarm of players joining gold this weekend who will be kicked.