Should flex mythic raiding exist in DF?

[NineSpine]

That's literally what I said. I'm explaining it to you since clearly you, you know, NEED IT EXPLAINED.

I'm surprised that you say you have a background in history, being precise and meticulous about things that seem simple and obvious on the surface should be bread and butter there. As it is in most scholarship and the sciences.

Quite the contrary. In fact, it is the grey and uncertain nature of history that informs me very clearly about the importance of being able to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions. I sort of assumed you would, since you said you had an academic background. I guess I was wrong. How does someone who's in history not know the function of dictionaries?

This is the clearest example of the kind of pseudo-intellectual horseshit you do:

You said very clearly that dictionaries don't provide definitions, and then when proven wrong you accuse ME of not understanding the distinction between prescription and description, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bullshit claim you made that I proved wrong. You retreat to another concept entirely that you think you can stake some kind of smarmy intellectual high ground on rather than saying "I'm sorry, it was stupid of me to say that."

I assume you're talking about whether WHAT they believe is opinion or fact here, not whether the fact THAT they believe it is opinion or fact?

That depends on what you mean by "opinion" - that's my whole point. You yourself cited three possible meanings earlier (and there's more, of course).

If their justification for the belief is "I just believe it's true, I don't have to justify it" then it's an opinion as in subjective preference outside of truth claims; i.e. it's not an argument, and can't be used as such.

If their justification for the belief is "I believe it's true because there's evidence X, Y, and Z and I accept those for reasons A, B, and C" then it's opinion as the sum of positions on a subject, which IS an argument and can be leveraged as such.

That's a long, obnoxious way of saying "Yes, that is an opinion."

More words and bigger words and more complex sentence structures are not what intelligence is made of.

[GreenJesus]

It's not just the 1% that would be impacted by this. Guilds would be encouraged to sell IDs for just the last boss.

Again, a 1% of 1% problem. I don't care. We can't stop progressing the game for the 99% because of the 1% try-hards. The greater good would be served by removing the lockout system. I don't care if the top ten guilds are "encouraged to sell ID's for the last boss". They sell cutting edge already anyway. Who cares? If they are able to reprogress through the whole raid again just to sell a carry to 1 person each time then more power to them. That shouldn't stop progress for the enjoyment of the game by 100x more people.

Catering to Method and Limit is the worst mistake blizzard can do for the game. They only make up 1% of 1% of 1% of their revenue.

[Biomega]

You said very clearly that dictionaries don't provide definitions, and then when proven wrong you accuse ME of not understanding the distinction between prescription and description

Because you clearly don't? I said dictionaries don't define words, they explain their usage. How is that not prescriptive vs. descriptive definition? Dictionaries aren't where you go to in order to find out what "opinion" MEANS, they're where you go to in order to find out how people generally USE the word "opinion". That's what dictionaries do and always have done, and that's why they CHANGE over time as people use words differently.

And by the way, that's just a little side quest here, it changes absolutely nothing about my point since when you brought in the dictionary, you actually made my point for me by demonstrating that one word can have different meanings depending on usage.

That's a long, obnoxious way of saying "Yes, that is an opinion."

More words and bigger words and more complex sentence structures are not what intelligence is made of.

And I'm failing to see what exactly your goal was, there. To prove that yes, some things are just subjective preferences that don't need justification or proof? Something I never denied or challenged?

My point isn't that people can't have opinions in the sense of subjective preferences, my point is that THOSE ARE NOT ARGUMENTS and you can't use them like arguments. You can have them all you want, knock yourself out. But you can't go "Actually your argument is wrong because my opinion says otherwise" because that's a category error of the most elementary kind.

How about you, you know, engage with THAT instead of trying in vain to trap me into saying something incorrect in answer to yet another simplistic "Purple is the most delicious Jesus" statement.

I find it baffling that it's been like half a week now of me just wanting you to justify your initial claims by providing any sort of evidence at all, and you refused because "it would take too much time" but somehow found it in you to go on a now several-page-long rant about how unfair it is that I won't just take your word for everything you say.

[Relapses]

Again, a 1% of 1% problem. I don't care. We can't stop progressing the game for the 99% because of the 1% try-hards. The greater good would be served by removing the lockout system. I don't care if the top ten guilds are "encouraged to sell ID's for the last boss". They sell cutting edge already anyway. Who cares? If they are able to reprogress through the whole raid again just to sell a carry to 1 person each time then more power to them. That shouldn't stop progress for the enjoyment of the game by 100x more people.

Catering to Method and Limit is the worst mistake blizzard can do for the game. They only make up 1% of 1% of 1% of their revenue.

It would impact literally every single Mythic guild in the game because now there will be incentives to sell lockouts at certain bosses. Why make Mythic raiding even more of a chore than it is already? It'd just make it'd more PuG friendly which I'm fairly sure Blizzard gives zero fucks about.

[GreenJesus]

It would impact literally every single Mythic guild in the game because now there will be incentives to sell lockouts at certain bosses. Why make Mythic raiding even more of a chore than it is already? It'd just make it'd more PuG friendly which I'm fairly sure Blizzard gives zero fucks about.

FF14 doesn't have this problem. I'm sure blozzard can figure it out.

[Relapses]

FF14 doesn't have this problem. I'm sure blozzard can figure it out.

FF14 doesn't have this problem because the hardest raid difficulty is equivalent to WoW's Heroic. "I'm sure Blizzard can figure it out" is the most non-answer imaginable. They did figure it out. 20 years ago. With Raid IDs.

[The Oblivion]

FF14 doesn't have this problem because the hardest raid difficulty is equivalent to WoW's Heroic. "I'm sure Blizzard can figure it out" is the most non-answer imaginable. They did figure it out. 20 years ago. With Raid IDs.

only someone who cant clear mythics or savages would think savages are heroic level, maybe the first boss is = final boss heroic, after that it scales very quickly. with extremes being much harder than nearly every single mythic fight

[epigramx]

It's impossible to have a serious race to the world first with random numbers of people, because there would be constant flamewars about what difficulty is the most "pro"; it's the main reason 10man and 25man could not co-exist; every single day in this very forum too you had people infighting about who had the coolest kill between the 2 difficulties and it's not their fault because it's inevitably impossible to balance it for the devs.

The best compromise is to include 10man but in its own instances; have the 20man instances race but also a 10man instances race; the 5man instances are way too many nowadays anyway and it's overused.

[NineSpine]

Because you clearly don't? I said dictionaries don't define words, they explain their usage. How is that not prescriptive vs. descriptive definition? Dictionaries aren't where you go to in order to find out what "opinion" MEANS, they're where you go to in order to find out how people generally USE the word "opinion". That's what dictionaries do and always have done, and that's why they CHANGE over time as people use words differently.

If dictionaries don't contain definitions, then they don't contain prescriptive definitions or descriptive definitions. Descriptive definitions are a type of definition. You said "Dictionaries don't give definitions of terms".

Just admit you made a mistake, rather than trying to turn your mistake into another excuse to tell us how brilliant of a philosopher you are.

And by the way, that's just a little side quest here, it changes absolutely nothing about my point since when you brought in the dictionary, you actually made my point for me by demonstrating that one word can have different meanings depending on usage.

And I'm failing to see what exactly your goal was, there. To prove that yes, some things are just subjective preferences that don't need justification or proof? Something I never denied or challenged?

My point isn't that people can't have opinions in the sense of subjective preferences, my point is that THOSE ARE NOT ARGUMENTS and you can't use them like arguments. You can have them all you want, knock yourself out. But you can't go "Actually your argument is wrong because my opinion says otherwise" because that's a category error of the most elementary kind.

My point is that the acceptance or non-acceptance of an argument is an opinion.

How about you, you know, engage with THAT instead of trying in vain to trap me into saying something incorrect in answer to yet another simplistic "Purple is the most delicious Jesus" statement.

I find it baffling that it's been like half a week now of me just wanting you to justify your initial claims by providing any sort of evidence at all, and you refused because "it would take too much time" but somehow found it in you to go on a now several-page-long rant about how unfair it is that I won't just take your word for everything you say.

I'm not the one who takes every tiny little point as an excuse to go an on extended, condescending tangent to prove my mighty intelligence.

What I am showing is that no matter what I provide to you, you are so arrogant and eager to look clever that it won't matter. How am I to take seriously and treat with any kind of respect someone who flatly states "Dictionaries don't contain definitions" and when called on it uses it as an excuse to condescend and lecture about prescription vs description, rather than simply saying "I'm sorry, that was a silly thing to say, what I should have said is..."

Just take a breath, stop being afraid to admit the most trivial and minor of mistakes, maybe go a few hours without watching a YouTube atheist debate video, and try to actually converse like a normal human being.

- - - Updated - - -

FF14 doesn't have this problem because the hardest raid difficulty is equivalent to WoW's Heroic. "I'm sure Blizzard can figure it out" is the most non-answer imaginable. They did figure it out. 20 years ago. With Raid IDs.

Why did the most recent Ultimate take more than twice as many pulls for world first as mythic jailer?

[Arai]

Yes it should exist, should have since Legion/BfA. If flex is too much for some Mythic crybabies then introduce 10m Mythic. Im a former CE raider and 20m mythic is a trash format catered to the top 0.1%. Everything after top 50 wouldn't even bother if something isn't 100% optimal.
Raiding is in hard decline mainly because 20m is a logistics gatekeeping boss and the opposite of fun. Big downtimes, people missing, cant fill up, dead weight, etc. etc.
It needs to change. It had to change for years now.

[Biomega]

My point is that the acceptance or non-acceptance of an argument is an opinion.

Yes, but it depends on which kind of "opinion" we're talking about.

Of course you can accept or reject an argument for any reason you like. Nobody can tell you that you can't disagree with something. That's not the point. The point is, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE DISCOURSE after you disagree - if your disagreement is based in opinion=I just believe it, then there's nothing more to talk about. You've killed the discussion by pulling the I-just-think-so card, which doesn't allow for further, reasoned discussion. Such an opinion can only convince you yourself, never anyone else; and it's beyond debate, so there's nothing further you can do. It's the argumentative equivalent of crossing your arms and going "nope". Which - again - I'm fine with as a position, as long as it's admitted. Plenty of discussion end this way: someone just goes "I don't believe it, period, and I don't have to explain why" and then you stop and go your separate ways.

If, however, you use opinion=the sum of my positions to not accept an argument, that is different. You explain why you're not convinced, or what fails to convince you when the other party thought it would. Then the debate continues from there, making more and better arguments to try and change things. This is the dialectic of discourse.

Those two options are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT, even though you could describe both as "opinion". You can't use them interchangeably in discourse, because they don't function the same.

I'm not the one who takes every tiny little point as an excuse to go an on extended, condescending tangent to prove my mighty intelligence.

Neither am I. YOU were the one being condescending, because "you see this talk in grad student papers all the time" and so on. The only one who ever brought this argument up was... you. YOU were the one who brought "I actually have a background in history, you know" into this, too. Did I ever do that, anywhere? Did I ever try and directly leverage my personal position, background, or experience? ANYWHERE? Because you did. Do you even KNOW my background, in any way? No? Didn't think so. Because UNLIKE YOU, I never talked about it or tried to make it a part of this discussion.

You're uncomfortable with being pressed for details when superficial nonsense doesn't fly. And so you turn it around and try to make it into nothing but a pissing contest. That's not going to work. Provide substance for your argument, or admit it's NOT an argument and you're just stating a preference that you want heard, not discussed. The ad hominems you can check at the door.

What I am showing is that no matter what I provide to you, you are so arrogant and eager to look clever that it won't matter.

That's what I've been saying from the start.

You're using all this to wriggle out of having to explain yourself, because you, well, can't. All you would have to do is provide evidence for your claims. That's it. I'm not asking for anything else. And instead of doing that, you've spent several days whining about how that would never work because I'm such a mean, mean stickler for actual substance.

Stubbornly refusing to provide evidence when that would just shut me up on the spot is pretty telling. As is CLAIMING "you wouldn't accept it anyway!" rather than, you know, providing evidence and SEEING WHAT HAPPENS. Because that would require you to actually prove things, and you know most of your points are either irrelevant, or specious and unsubstantiated, don't you.

How about "put up or shut up" for a change? Or do you want to write ANOTHER page of text about how you providing evidence "wouldn't prove anything anyway and everyone should just, you know, accept already what I've said and leave me alone and oh my god what the hell is evidence anyway and nothing would satisfy you and you're just being pedantic and SHUT UP AND AGREE ALREADY FUCK I DON'T WANT TO EXPLAIN MYSELF I JUST WANT YOU TO SAY YES, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT".

Yes. Yes I do understand that. I just don't accept it.

[Relapses]

Why did the most recent Ultimate take more than twice as many pulls for world first as mythic jailer?

Because FFXVI players have been playing in the kiddie pool for so long that an actual difficult boss was something of an anomaly? /shrug

I don't know, I don't play FFXVI. I've seen FFXVI raids and they generally don't strike me as particularly difficult. They're different than WoW raids, though, to a point where it's hard to stratify difficulty between the two games.

[enigma77]

Flex is trash.

There should be 10 man Mythic, an easier version of 20 man Mythic to appeal to people who are too good for heroic but not good enough/not enough friends to raid 20 man Mythic.

[NineSpine]

Because FFXVI players have been playing in the kiddie pool for so long that an actual difficult boss was something of an anomaly? /shrug

I don't know, I don't play FFXVI. I've seen FFXVI raids and they generally don't strike me as particularly difficult. They're different than WoW raids, though, to a point where it's hard to stratify difficulty between the two games.

But there are hardcore mythic raiders that play both games. In fact, a team of wow world first raiders tried their hand at the savage world first race. They practiced for six months. They came in 37th.

Let's be real: There is no way you would make these excuses the other way around. If someone said Mythic Jailer took twice as many pulls as Ultimate Dragonsong, you'd turn right around and use it as proof of how much harder wow is, so let's cut the bullshit. If someone said "Oh well that's because FF14 players are so elite and wow players suck" you would rightfully laugh off such a stupid argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but it depends on which kind of "opinion" we're talking about.

Of course you can accept or reject an argument for any reason you like. Nobody can tell you that you can't disagree with something. That's not the point. The point is, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE DISCOURSE after you disagree - if your disagreement is based in opinion=I just believe it, then there's nothing more to talk about. You've killed the discussion by pulling the I-just-think-so card, which doesn't allow for further, reasoned discussion. Such an opinion can only convince you yourself, never anyone else; and it's beyond debate, so there's nothing further you can do. It's the argumentative equivalent of crossing your arms and going "nope". Which - again - I'm fine with as a position, as long as it's admitted. Plenty of discussion end this way: someone just goes "I don't believe it, period, and I don't have to explain why" and then you stop and go your separate ways.

If, however, you use opinion=the sum of my positions to not accept an argument, that is different. You explain why you're not convinced, or what fails to convince you when the other party thought it would. Then the debate continues from there, making more and better arguments to try and change things. This is the dialectic of discourse.

Those two options are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT, even though you could describe both as "opinion". You can't use them interchangeably in discourse, because they don't function the same.

Neither am I. YOU were the one being condescending, because "you see this talk in grad student papers all the time" and so on. The only one who ever brought this argument up was... you. YOU were the one who brought "I actually have a background in history, you know" into this, too. Did I ever do that, anywhere? Did I ever try and directly leverage my personal position, background, or experience? ANYWHERE? Because you did. Do you even KNOW my background, in any way? No? Didn't think so. Because UNLIKE YOU, I never talked about it or tried to make it a part of this discussion.

You're uncomfortable with being pressed for details when superficial nonsense doesn't fly. And so you turn it around and try to make it into nothing but a pissing contest. That's not going to work. Provide substance for your argument, or admit it's NOT an argument and you're just stating a preference that you want heard, not discussed. The ad hominems you can check at the door.


That's what I've been saying from the start.

You're using all this to wriggle out of having to explain yourself, because you, well, can't. All you would have to do is provide evidence for your claims. That's it. I'm not asking for anything else. And instead of doing that, you've spent several days whining about how that would never work because I'm such a mean, mean stickler for actual substance.

Stubbornly refusing to provide evidence when that would just shut me up on the spot is pretty telling. As is CLAIMING "you wouldn't accept it anyway!" rather than, you know, providing evidence and SEEING WHAT HAPPENS. Because that would require you to actually prove things, and you know most of your points are either irrelevant, or specious and unsubstantiated, don't you.

How about "put up or shut up" for a change? Or do you want to write ANOTHER page of text about how you providing evidence "wouldn't prove anything anyway and everyone should just, you know, accept already what I've said and leave me alone and oh my god what the hell is evidence anyway and nothing would satisfy you and you're just being pedantic and SHUT UP AND AGREE ALREADY FUCK I DON'T WANT TO EXPLAIN MYSELF I JUST WANT YOU TO SAY YES, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT".

Yes. Yes I do understand that. I just don't accept it.

I'm pretty much done until you can admit that you were wrong when you said "Dictionaries don't give definitions of terms". This is the perfect test of whether you are someone with something to say, or someone who likes to say things. if you can't even muster up the humility to admit that that was a stupid, incorrect statement, it's really not worth continuing. You very clearly know you were wrong because you adjusted your argument after it was pointed out how wrong you were.

[Biomega]

I'm pretty much done until you can admit that you were wrong when you said "Dictionaries don't give definitions of terms".

Putting aside the fact how hilarious it is to give an ultimatum when this entire thing started and is still going on because of me going "provide evidence or admit you're just making things up as you please", nothing about what I said is wrong.

The problem lies in YOU reading "definition" ONLY as meaning "descriptive definition", but me using it as meaning "prescriptive definition" because of its juxtaposition with usage in the given context.

I even further EXPLAINED it by pointing out the prescriptive/descriptive distinction, and now somehow you're going on as if that in any way invalidates what I originally said. The sentence, as stated, is still entirely correct, because context matters. If you IGNORE the context and confine the word to one particular meaning, then sure, absolutely, it's incorrect. That's a weird restriction to put on things, but by all means. It doesn't change anything whatsoever about the actual point, but totally, yeah.

This is the perfect test of whether you are someone with something to say, or someone who likes to say things.

Better than the test of someone making claims, you asking for proof, and them goin on FOR THREE DAYS about how providing proof wouldn't prove anything anyway and I'm a really wicked imp for tormenting them so with a pesky demand for, you know, actual evidence for anything?

Damn. Tough room, I guess.

if you can't even muster up the humility to admit that that was a stupid, incorrect statement

As opposed to what, mustering up the humility to admit that what you said was just made-up talking points with no evidence or proof behind them of any kind?

I can only repeat: PUT UP, OR SHUT UP. You started this by making wild claims. People going "but hang on, do you have actual evidence for this?" is neither unreasonable nor unexpected. AND YET...

[Xath]

Yes. Just removing the lockout would be huge to allow pugs to do mythic. Right now its extremely risky to pug because the group you join is the only group you can join for the rest of the week (reminder: in a monthly sub game).

It would also make it easier for guilds to find replacements and fill-ins for bosses where the healer or tank cant make raid that night. Right now who would waste their lockout on filling in for some guild member when you might just get replaced by someone logging in 10 minutes later and you lose your lockout for the rest of the week.

Ion i know you were guildmaster of "Elitist Jerks", but its time to stop, reevaluate the social systems in raiding and whether all these social blocks are worth thousands of people quitting the game. Its the year 2022. Look at how FF14 does savage. Its time to move on and remove the boundaries. Just let people play the game bro.

I actually agree with removing the mythic lockout function also open up cross faction and cross realm immediately. Can still have loot locked per boss but would make pugging much easier.

[Caprias]

I hope they'll make mythic more accessible(!not easier) but I don't think flex would fix that in a significant enough way.

No issue to find 3 evenings/week but the 90-100% attendance rate your average CE guild will want (due to the way lockouts/late cross server work) just sucks.

[NineSpine]

Putting aside the fact how hilarious it is to give an ultimatum when this entire thing started and is still going on because of me going "provide evidence or admit you're just making things up as you please", nothing about what I said is wrong.

The problem lies in YOU reading "definition" ONLY as meaning "descriptive definition", but me using it as meaning "prescriptive definition" because of its juxtaposition with usage in the given context.

I even further EXPLAINED it by pointing out the prescriptive/descriptive distinction, and now somehow you're going on as if that in any way invalidates what I originally said. The sentence, as stated, is still entirely correct, because context matters. If you IGNORE the context and confine the word to one particular meaning, then sure, absolutely, it's incorrect. That's a weird restriction to put on things, but by all means. It doesn't change anything whatsoever about the actual point, but totally, yeah.


Better than the test of someone making claims, you asking for proof, and them goin on FOR THREE DAYS about how providing proof wouldn't prove anything anyway and I'm a really wicked imp for tormenting them so with a pesky demand for, you know, actual evidence for anything?

Damn. Tough room, I guess.


As opposed to what, mustering up the humility to admit that what you said was just made-up talking points with no evidence or proof behind them of any kind?

I can only repeat: PUT UP, OR SHUT UP. You started this by making wild claims. People going "but hang on, do you have actual evidence for this?" is neither unreasonable nor unexpected. AND YET...

I read "definitions" to mean "definitions", which is a category that includes prescriptive and descriptive definitions. Much like any literate human being would read it.

You are completely unable to take the incredibly minor hit to your ego that admitting you were wrong on something this trivial would cause. It's pathetic.

[callipygoustp]

Should flex mythic raiding exist in DF?

Absolutely not!

[Dimmak]

Yes but the range needs to be tighter. Like 18 to 22. No major mechanical changes and the ability to have someone out or let someone newer join.