Poll: Should flex mythic raiding exist?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
15
... LastLast
  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Thank you for proving my earlier prediction that you still don't understand how to differentiate the meanings of opinion.
    I objected to the way you tried to argue, because it was argumentatively invalid. I know you disagree, because the above sentence proves you still don't understand what the problem is.

    I think we've pretty much demonstrated at this point that you didn't really have an argument, you just had some positions you wanted to put out there so people could hear them. They did.


    When did "facts" enter into this all of a sudden? You were harping on about opinions for three days, now suddenly it's "facts"? What facts? When did I ever talk about the nature of facts?

    More distractions? You're grasping HARD now, aren't you, just so you don't have to substantiate your claims.

    I'm not demanding CERTAINTY, nor did I ever use that word anywhere. Why are you inventing all these things now that weren't part of the conversation so far?

    I want EVIDENCE of any kind, certainty to any degree that is epistemologically feasible, but more than "I just feel it in me waters, arrr". Which is about as much substance as you've so far provided.

    We didn't even GET to the point where I could go "this evidence isn't good enough" because you NEVER PROVIDED ANY in the first place. You just turned around and went "this is all just my opinion, man", to which I can only reply okay if by that you mean it's just your subjective preference that you don't need to justify then cool beans, we done, move on along home, you've terminated the discussion; but if instead you mean it's the sum of your positions then justify those positions with evidence.

    Yes. And the demands made of evidence are proportionate to the magnitude of the claim. "Sarah says she has a dog" is mundane, and the evidence demand is mundane too (dogs exist, people keep dogs, Sarah is not known to lie about trivial things (I assume that's given in the example)). But if Sarah goes "I have a dog that can do arithmetic", then that's NOT good enough to believe her, and I'd want MORE EVIDENCE than before to accept that claim. And if Sarah goes "I have a dragon", I'd need HELLUVA LOT evidence to even come close to believing that.

    Your claims were nowhere near the level of "I have a dog". They were more like "dogs are why we get hurricanes and if dogs were gone we'd all get a million dollars", none of which is REMOTELY covered by the available evidence.
    Most of what you said here was mental masturbation, so I'm just gonna move forward on the relevant bits:

    To act like level of certainty, as in confidence in a claim, is irrelevant to the conversation is... just weird. I don't even know how to address something that silly.If you say that you are barely convinced of something, but you believe it, then what I expect you to generate as far as evidence is substantially lower than if you say that you are absolutely convinced of something and know it. This is non-controversial and how normal people consider things.

    The idea that I've made claims that contradict the fundamental nature of reality as we understand it (like dogs causing hurricanes) is again a great example of your psychotically ungenerous and ridiculous way of presenting yourself.

    What claim do you want evidence for?
    Last edited by NineSpine; 2022-08-15 at 12:16 PM.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  2. #242
    No.

    However I think cross-realm, cross-faction, no boundaries 20-man mythic raids should be a thing from the get-go. Absolutely no reason why it isn't.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    I don't think it's a fundamentally flawed argument to point out that up until recently FFXVI's endgame raid content has not been as difficult as WoW's traditionally has been. Perhaps I painted it with too broad a brush but I still don't think "it works in FFXVI" is a particularly compelling argument for changing the way Raid IDs work right now.
    As an aside, why are you talking about FF 16?
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  4. #244
    Limit Max had a great solution about mythic raiding.

    Remove the raid lockout, let anyone join any group at any boss he or she chooses, cross-server and everything. Just like in hc but without the flex size. It would solve so much headache for thousands of guilds struggling in mythic.
    None of us really changes over time. We only become more fully what we are.

  5. #245
    Mechagnome Indigenously Abled's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    The Reservation (Thanks White People)
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Aphrel View Post
    Limit Max had a great solution about mythic raiding.

    Remove the raid lockout, let anyone join any group at any boss he or she chooses, cross-server and everything. Just like in hc but without the flex size. It would solve so much headache for thousands of guilds struggling in mythic.
    Fine with this, honestly.
    Thanks for the ad-hominem; it supports your inability to support your argument.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    To act like level of certainty, as in confidence in a claim, is irrelevant to the conversation is... just weird.
    Confidence and certainty are not the same thing. And where did I say either is IRRELEVANT, please? I said they weren't part of the conversation because they weren't - we never talked about those words anywhere so far. That doesn't mean I think they're irrelevant, I'm just confused why you suddenly bring them up when we never talked about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    If you say that you are barely convinced of something, but you believe it, then what I expect you to generate as far as evidence is substantially lower than if you say that you are absolutely convinced of something and know it. This is non-controversial and how normal people consider things.
    I'm not sure what you mean here. Epistemologically speaking, knowledge is a subset of belief - some of the things you believe you also know. That means you already have good evidence for it, because that's how knowledge differs from belief (knowledge is a JUSTIFIED and TRUE belief). I'm not really interested in belief per se - it's either entirely trivial (as in e.g. dispositional or occurrent beliefs about mundane things) or it's epistemologically inaccessible (as in e.g. religious belief). I'm only interested in knowledge - i.e. justified true beliefs - because that's the only way to have a productive conversation in most contexts.

    I'm NOT talking about a vernacular form of "believe" as in "I believe in gravity" - epistemologically speaking that is at best a dispositional belief (or an occurrent belief, if you think about it specifically) but it's really just a form of knowledge.

    And before it's brought up: I'm not talking about CERTAINTY here to any degree other than the usual epistemological certainty that accompanies all justified true beliefs. Perfect certainty is impossible, and that's not relevant. I'm interested in the JUSTIFICATION and TRUTH of a belief, i.e. how it becomes knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    The idea that I've made claims that contradict the fundamental nature of reality as we understand it
    It's called an analogy. Look it up. You weren't talking about dogs, either, yet somehow you thought that was an example that should be brought into this. BECAUSE IT'S ANALOGOUS to how your arguments work.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    What claim do you want evidence for?
    Any that you make, really. And the amount of evidence needs to be proportional to the magnitude of the claim.

    Here's how it started, for example:

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    We don't center the entire game's systems around pet battlers, so why should we center it around 1% of players who want to beat their face against a mythic endboss for two months?
    Prove that "the entire game's systems" are designed around "1% of players what to beat their fact against a mythic endbosss for two months". That's your PREMISE, and it's already specious and untrue.

    Then there's other things like:

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    We are all impacted by the class homogenization that high difficulty content has required.
    Prove that "high difficulty content" is what "required" class homogenization. You're just throwing it out there like it's self evident, but the fact is that we've had homogenization efforts (like e.g. giving everyone interrupts) BEFORE we had content like M+ or mythic raiding in the game. This directly contradicts your statement, so what's the justification for making it? What prevents homogenization to be desired for other reasons, for example - general gameplay, say, including low-difficulty solo gameplay.

    And of course wild claims like:
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    We are all impacted by rewards outside of raids being throttled so as not to hurt the feelings of mythic raiders.
    First of, what do you mean by "impacted"? Is this just a synonym for "not completely unaffected", or is there some connotation of negativity?

    Next, how do you show rewards have ACTUALLY been "throttled" "outside of raids", and what time frame are you looking at? Since you talk about mythic raiding I assume that's for the time period where mythic raiding existed? How, then, do you explain "throttling" of rewards such as e.g. the removal of badge gear after WotLK, which was BEFORE mythic raiding (or M+) existed? And how do you explain the "throttling" of rewards WITHIN raids such as e.g. the Shadowlands raid drop reduction?

    Lastly, how do you prove this was actually BECAUSE it would "hurt the feelings of mythic raiders" otherwise, and not for another reason? Extend the longevity of content, say, or depress gear acquisition rates to maintain difficulty of non-raid content. How do you know the SPECIFIC reason?

    I could go on, but I'm waiting to see if you provide evidence for those first, or if you just repeat your spiel of "these are all self-evident ARE YOU STUPID" or "I would explain it but you wouldn't accept it anyway" or "these are just, like, my opinions, man".

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Aphrel View Post
    Limit Max had a great solution about mythic raiding.

    Remove the raid lockout, let anyone join any group at any boss he or she chooses, cross-server and everything. Just like in hc but without the flex size. It would solve so much headache for thousands of guilds struggling in mythic.
    I don't think removing the raid lockout would necessarily be a good idea because I can totally foresee some weird shenanigans happening as a result that I wouldn't be cool with. Like boosting services could go through the roof.
    Imagine if the best guilds could just endlessly sell mythic clears to people because they can endlessly reclear content. I don't think I really like that idea, and that's something that could happen as a result unless you make it so that no loot drops if even ONE player in the raid has already cleared that boss that week.

    I do think it should just be cross realm immediately. Server identity really hasn't been a thing in a long time now, so it doesn't make sense to force people to be all on the same server.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Confidence and certainty are not the same thing. And where did I say either is IRRELEVANT, please? I said they weren't part of the conversation because they weren't - we never talked about those words anywhere so far. That doesn't mean I think they're irrelevant, I'm just confused why you suddenly bring them up when we never talked about them.
    Can you please knock it off with the giant essay responses to very single sentence. It is disrespectful of other peoples' time and it is incredibly condescending. I don't need a dissertation on every tiny point you want to make. You are not that interesting.

    I am allowed to bring up topics that I find relevant to the conversation, and in this case I think level of certainty is a relevant concept. I explained why this is the case and instead you are lecturing me on using a word you didn't use.

    I'm not sure what you mean here. Epistemologically speaking, knowledge is a subset of belief - some of the things you believe you also know. That means you already have good evidence for it, because that's how knowledge differs from belief (knowledge is a JUSTIFIED and TRUE belief). I'm not really interested in belief per se - it's either entirely trivial (as in e.g. dispositional or occurrent beliefs about mundane things) or it's epistemologically inaccessible (as in e.g. religious belief). I'm only interested in knowledge - i.e. justified true beliefs - because that's the only way to have a productive conversation in most contexts.

    I'm NOT talking about a vernacular form of "believe" as in "I believe in gravity" - epistemologically speaking that is at best a dispositional belief (or an occurrent belief, if you think about it specifically) but it's really just a form of knowledge.

    And before it's brought up: I'm not talking about CERTAINTY here to any degree other than the usual epistemological certainty that accompanies all justified true beliefs. Perfect certainty is impossible, and that's not relevant. I'm interested in the JUSTIFICATION and TRUTH of a belief, i.e. how it becomes knowledge.
    I get it, you watch a lot of Matt Dillahunty. You are very clever and very smart. Thank you for yet another lecture on concepts I already fully understand and don't further this discussion at all.

    It's called an analogy. Look it up. You weren't talking about dogs, either, yet somehow you thought that was an example that should be brought into this. BECAUSE IT'S ANALOGOUS to how your arguments work.
    Thank you for explaining that you constructed a pointless analogy. The substance of your analogy was that my claim is ridiculous and incoherent and can't be compared to a mundane claim because outrageous claims require higher levels of evidence. In reality, my claims are utterly mundane.

    Any that you make, really. And the amount of evidence needs to be proportional to the magnitude of the claim.

    Here's how it started, for example:

    Prove that "the entire game's systems" are designed around "1% of players what to beat their fact against a mythic endbosss for two months". That's your PREMISE, and it's already specious and untrue.
    That's my professional opinion as someone who has worked in game design, based on how the game's systems are organized. You seem to think I am going to pull out some leaked document where Ion states that that is the case. That's not how I arrived at that position. I arrived at it by looking at the game's design, seeing how it impacts players, seeing what content gets prioritized, and coming to that conclusion.

    This is like if I saw a tree that had the initials S.H. in it and I said "Someone with the initials S.H. probably did that" and you are demanding I "prove" it. This is an inference based on the context, not some dissertation I wrote based on reviewing internal Blizzard documents that I can now share with you.

    Unlike you, I simply do not operate under the delusion that everything I believe is absolutely true. I apportion belief, which is what you do too but you have convinced yourself that because you watch a lot of atheist YouTube debates you are some kind of mega-genius that only believes perfectly true information.

    Prove that "high difficulty content" is what "required" class homogenization. You're just throwing it out there like it's self evident, but the fact is that we've had homogenization efforts (like e.g. giving everyone interrupts) BEFORE we had content like M+ or mythic raiding in the game. This directly contradicts your statement, so what's the justification for making it? What prevents homogenization to be desired for other reasons, for example - general gameplay, say, including low-difficulty solo gameplay.
    Difficult content existed before mythic.

    This is a general rule for game design. The higher the difficulty, the tighter the tuning has to be. Tighter tuning requires increasing amounts of homogenization. Lower difficulty content can allow more variety because completion is less contingent on output thresholds, overcoming mechanics with specific abilities, etc..

    First of, what do you mean by "impacted"? Is this just a synonym for "not completely unaffected", or is there some connotation of negativity?
    It's not necessarily negative.

    Next, how do you show rewards have ACTUALLY been "throttled" "outside of raids", and what time frame are you looking at? Since you talk about mythic raiding I assume that's for the time period where mythic raiding existed? How, then, do you explain "throttling" of rewards such as e.g. the removal of badge gear after WotLK, which was BEFORE mythic raiding (or M+) existed? And how do you explain the "throttling" of rewards WITHIN raids such as e.g. the Shadowlands raid drop reduction?
    The rewards today are throttled because of Blizzard's catering to mythic level players. I never said the throttling started because of them. I should have said outside of mythic+ and rated pvp as well though. See how easy it is to admit making a mistake?

    Lastly, how do you prove this was actually BECAUSE it would "hurt the feelings of mythic raiders" otherwise, and not for another reason? Extend the longevity of content, say, or depress gear acquisition rates to maintain difficulty of non-raid content. How do you know the SPECIFIC reason?
    There are a variety of reasons that I believe this, but again I should say "mythic raiders, M+ players, and rated PvPers".

    I think that Ion's general condescending attitude towards the playerbase and his history as a high end player show a bias against other kinds of players, or at least a remarkable lack of understanding of those other kinds of players. I think Blizzard has shown very strongly a preference toward an e-sports mindset for the game, and we can see this in how they promote the game, what they put on their YouTube, etc..

    I could go on, but I'm waiting to see if you provide evidence for those first, or if you just repeat your spiel of "these are all self-evident ARE YOU STUPID" or "I would explain it but you wouldn't accept it anyway" or "these are just, like, my opinions, man".
    The problem is what is going to happen is that you are going to disregard everything I said above, provide me with at least another lecture on philosophy, probably argue about word definitions, and then demand an unreasonable and absurd level of "proof" for claims that I am freely admitting are inferences informed by my professional opinion from when I worked in game design.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Hctaz View Post
    I don't think removing the raid lockout would necessarily be a good idea because I can totally foresee some weird shenanigans happening as a result that I wouldn't be cool with. Like boosting services could go through the roof.
    Imagine if the best guilds could just endlessly sell mythic clears to people because they can endlessly reclear content. I don't think I really like that idea, and that's something that could happen as a result unless you make it so that no loot drops if even ONE player in the raid has already cleared that boss that week.

    I do think it should just be cross realm immediately. Server identity really hasn't been a thing in a long time now, so it doesn't make sense to force people to be all on the same server.
    I don’t know this seems like a minor problem at best. Your chances of loot are very low in a non funnel raids anyways. There definitely would be more community mythic runs and guilds being able to kill bosses again for players who weren’t in for a kill. There’s a lot of weird things they’ll happen, like having to hold a billion lock outs on different bosses to farm trinkets and stuff each week. But honestly might feel better than perma extend lock a lot of guilds run into.
    www.twitch.tv/rtrain

    Free Agent! Looking for Guild for Legion!

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Can you please knock it off with the giant essay responses to very single sentence.
    No can do. When I try that you don't properly parse the language. We've had it happen several times.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I get it, you watch a lot of Matt Dillahunty. You are very clever and very smart. Thank you for yet another lecture on concepts I already fully understand and don't further this discussion at all.
    I have no idea who that is, I don't have a TV and spend as little time on YouTube as possible. These are not esoteric concepts. They're the absolute BASICS of epistemology. Anyone who's taken a philosophy class in college or ever read a book about epistemology should know all this.

    You've demonstrated on several occasions you do NOT understand very basic concepts. I'm making sure to explain them.

    You can't really have it both ways - you're going "you used this one word, now I'm confused about everything!" on the one hand, but also go "you explain too much, I'm not confused about anything!" on the other.

    Could it be you're just, you know, trying to be obnoxious on purpose?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    That's my professional opinion as someone who has worked in game design, based on how the game's systems are organized.
    So now we went from "I have a background in history" (when that seemed relevant) to "I have a background in game design" (when that seems relevant). Cool. Can't wait for when you reveal you've been a surgeon, too.

    Anything other than "this is what I think based on me claiming I have expertise" to back this up? And what does "how the game's systems are organized" mean, exactly? What systems? Organized how?

    Can you be specific about anything? At all? No one is asking for a direct quote where Ion goes "dammit I just love mythic raiding and the rest can go to hell", but you're providing nothing but "I think this because that's what I'm convinced of". ANY evidence AT ALL, please? Pretty please?

    Just to remind you: if all you want to do is go "that's what I think and I don't need to explain myself", that's cool. Just say so. Then we can all move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I arrived at it by looking at the game's design, seeing how it impacts players, seeing what content gets prioritized, and coming to that conclusion.
    So explain that process. You're saying nothing here. "I looked at it, and now that's what I think". WHAT did you look at SPECIFICALLY, and WHY does it lead to this conclusion?

    "Mr. Einstein, sir, how did you conclude energy and mass are the same thing?"
    "Well, I looked at the systems of physics, saw that gravity is kinda weird, and then came to that conclusion"
    "Yes, but... how?"
    "I have a background in physics, and that is my expert opinion"
    "Could we get any details, perhaps?"
    "What, you want me to find you a quote where an electron goes 'I have mass, you know!', come ON get real"

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    This is like if I saw a tree that had the initials S.H. in it and I said "Someone with the initials S.H. probably did that" and you are demanding I "prove" it. This is an inference based on the context
    SO GIVE THE CONTEXT.

    You're going "I went to the woods, and S.H. is a real bastard". And when we ask you who S.H. is and why he's a bastard, you go "Don't know what to tell you, I went, I saw, what do you want me to PROVE it now?".

    You're being vague and unspecific in EVERYTHING.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Unlike you, I simply do not operate under the delusion that everything I believe is absolutely true.
    Neither do I, but I want JUSTIFICATION for my beliefs.

    Just going "I looked at it and now that's how I feel about it" is not justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Tighter tuning requires increasing amounts of homogenization.
    Let's just assume this is unequivocally true (which it probably isn't, but that's not relevant), how do you show that the ONLY way homogenization happens is because of difficulty-based tuning? How do you exclude homogenization happening for OTHER reasons, too?

    If I turn on my sprinklers, my lawn gets wet. Always and necessarily. So if I see my lawn is wet, does that necessarily mean it's because I turned on my sprinklers?

    THIS is why I have to explain things - you are playing it fast and loose with ELEMENTARY logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    It's not necessarily negative.
    So if it's not negative (or even positive), how is it relevant in a discussion about whether or not to change mythic? And if you're just talking about the negatives to support a change in mythic, how do you distinguish when it is and when it isn't negative? Or do you think it's a problem even when it's a neutral or positive change?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    The rewards today are throttled because of Blizzard's catering to mythic level players.
    Prove it. Why can't it be the other reasons I mentioned, but has to be because of catering to mythic?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I think that Ion's general condescending attitude towards the playerbase
    Like what? Do you have an example of this? And how do you show it's GENERALLY condescending, as opposed to just sporadically? It's easy to demonize people, but this is just an accusation.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    his history as a high end player show a bias against other kinds of players, or at least a remarkable lack of understanding of those other kinds of players.
    Let's just assume this to be true, for the sake of argument (the bias part, I know the high-end player part IS in fact true). You'd still have to show the actual EFFECT of those biases in PRACTICE. A person's attitude is one thing, but it's another to show that their attitude actually affects things in their job, say. I know plenty of people who are biased in some way, but take great care not to let those biases affect their work. It's not always perfect and I'm sure bias creeps in, but you can't just go from "biased person" to "biased work" in a 1:1 correspondence - which means you'd have to show TO WHAT DEGREE the work is suffering from those personal biases, not just identify that there are personal biases and then ASSUME they translate directly to the work, too.

    That's why arguing against the person isn't very useful to begin with. It just looks like an unnecessary personal attack. Attack the WORK. The actual RESULTS. If all you do is "Ion is an ass, therefore WoW is shit" that's nothing but a very plain, very banal argumentum ad hominem.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I think Blizzard has shown very strongly a preference toward an e-sports mindset for the game, and we can see this in how they promote the game, what they put on their YouTube, etc..
    I think I can agree on this.

    Now show how much this negatively affects people who don't engage in those aspects, which is the actually interesting part.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    demand an unreasonable and absurd level of "proof" for claims that I am freely admitting are inferences informed by my professional opinion from when I worked in game design.
    If ALL you have is "I know game design, therefore this is what I think" and you do not want to explain any further, then this is purely a subjective preference not subject to debate. I can nod, go "that's cool", and move on. Just tell me if that's the case, and we can stop right there.

    If however you think there's actual ARGUMENTS for your position, then it's not unreasonable OR absurd for me to demand more than "I looked at it, I'm a game designer, and that's what I think, the end". Just like ANY expert in ANY field would be happy to provide details when asked, I expect the same from you. And if you refuse, that's fine - as long as we're clear that this means you're just putting your personal take out there without substantiation or evidence, simply to have it heard by other people.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by Hctaz View Post
    I don't think removing the raid lockout would necessarily be a good idea because I can totally foresee some weird shenanigans happening as a result that I wouldn't be cool with. Like boosting services could go through the roof.
    Imagine if the best guilds could just endlessly sell mythic clears to people because they can endlessly reclear content. I don't think I really like that idea, and that's something that could happen as a result unless you make it so that no loot drops if even ONE player in the raid has already cleared that boss that week.

    I do think it should just be cross realm immediately. Server identity really hasn't been a thing in a long time now, so it doesn't make sense to force people to be all on the same server.
    Pssst if anything it would crater prices of boosting services also no your looy idea is utterly idiotic

  12. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    No can do. When I try that you don't properly parse the language. We've had it happen several times.

    I have no idea who that is, I don't have a TV and spend as little time on YouTube as possible. These are not esoteric concepts. They're the absolute BASICS of epistemology. Anyone who's taken a philosophy class in college or ever read a book about epistemology should know all this.

    You've demonstrated on several occasions you do NOT understand very basic concepts. I'm making sure to explain them.

    You can't really have it both ways - you're going "you used this one word, now I'm confused about everything!" on the one hand, but also go "you explain too much, I'm not confused about anything!" on the other.

    Could it be you're just, you know, trying to be obnoxious on purpose?

    So now we went from "I have a background in history" (when that seemed relevant) to "I have a background in game design" (when that seems relevant). Cool. Can't wait for when you reveal you've been a surgeon, too.

    Anything other than "this is what I think based on me claiming I have expertise" to back this up? And what does "how the game's systems are organized" mean, exactly? What systems? Organized how?

    Can you be specific about anything? At all? No one is asking for a direct quote where Ion goes "dammit I just love mythic raiding and the rest can go to hell", but you're providing nothing but "I think this because that's what I'm convinced of". ANY evidence AT ALL, please? Pretty please?

    Just to remind you: if all you want to do is go "that's what I think and I don't need to explain myself", that's cool. Just say so. Then we can all move on.

    So explain that process. You're saying nothing here. "I looked at it, and now that's what I think". WHAT did you look at SPECIFICALLY, and WHY does it lead to this conclusion?

    "Mr. Einstein, sir, how did you conclude energy and mass are the same thing?"
    "Well, I looked at the systems of physics, saw that gravity is kinda weird, and then came to that conclusion"
    "Yes, but... how?"
    "I have a background in physics, and that is my expert opinion"
    "Could we get any details, perhaps?"
    "What, you want me to find you a quote where an electron goes 'I have mass, you know!', come ON get real"

    SO GIVE THE CONTEXT.

    You're going "I went to the woods, and S.H. is a real bastard". And when we ask you who S.H. is and why he's a bastard, you go "Don't know what to tell you, I went, I saw, what do you want me to PROVE it now?".

    You're being vague and unspecific in EVERYTHING.

    Neither do I, but I want JUSTIFICATION for my beliefs.

    Just going "I looked at it and now that's how I feel about it" is not justification.

    Let's just assume this is unequivocally true (which it probably isn't, but that's not relevant), how do you show that the ONLY way homogenization happens is because of difficulty-based tuning? How do you exclude homogenization happening for OTHER reasons, too?

    If I turn on my sprinklers, my lawn gets wet. Always and necessarily. So if I see my lawn is wet, does that necessarily mean it's because I turned on my sprinklers?

    THIS is why I have to explain things - you are playing it fast and loose with ELEMENTARY logic.

    So if it's not negative (or even positive), how is it relevant in a discussion about whether or not to change mythic? And if you're just talking about the negatives to support a change in mythic, how do you distinguish when it is and when it isn't negative? Or do you think it's a problem even when it's a neutral or positive change?

    Prove it. Why can't it be the other reasons I mentioned, but has to be because of catering to mythic?

    Like what? Do you have an example of this? And how do you show it's GENERALLY condescending, as opposed to just sporadically? It's easy to demonize people, but this is just an accusation.

    Let's just assume this to be true, for the sake of argument (the bias part, I know the high-end player part IS in fact true). You'd still have to show the actual EFFECT of those biases in PRACTICE. A person's attitude is one thing, but it's another to show that their attitude actually affects things in their job, say. I know plenty of people who are biased in some way, but take great care not to let those biases affect their work. It's not always perfect and I'm sure bias creeps in, but you can't just go from "biased person" to "biased work" in a 1:1 correspondence - which means you'd have to show TO WHAT DEGREE the work is suffering from those personal biases, not just identify that there are personal biases and then ASSUME they translate directly to the work, too.

    That's why arguing against the person isn't very useful to begin with. It just looks like an unnecessary personal attack. Attack the WORK. The actual RESULTS. If all you do is "Ion is an ass, therefore WoW is shit" that's nothing but a very plain, very banal argumentum ad hominem.

    I think I can agree on this.

    Now show how much this negatively affects people who don't engage in those aspects, which is the actually interesting part.

    If ALL you have is "I know game design, therefore this is what I think" and you do not want to explain any further, then this is purely a subjective preference not subject to debate. I can nod, go "that's cool", and move on. Just tell me if that's the case, and we can stop right there.

    If however you think there's actual ARGUMENTS for your position, then it's not unreasonable OR absurd for me to demand more than "I looked at it, I'm a game designer, and that's what I think, the end". Just like ANY expert in ANY field would be happy to provide details when asked, I expect the same from you. And if you refuse, that's fine - as long as we're clear that this means you're just putting your personal take out there without substantiation or evidence, simply to have it heard by other people.
    1. I asked you multiple times to knock it off with the seventeen page essay responses to every god damn sentence. You are wasting my time.

    2. Stop broadly responding with "prove it". Provide your counter-point or ask a specific clarifying question. I am not going to write a waste of time essay like you. Be specific.

    3. Stop saying shit like "...how do you show that the ONLY way...". You are requesting syllogistic reasoning for things I have repeatedly and emphatically said are REASONABLE BELIEFS BASED ON INDUCTION, not hard facts about the universe that I have 100% knowledge of.

    if you cannot abide by these three things, I'm not interested in continuing. Edit your above response to adhere to these simple, reasonable requests, or go away.
    Last edited by NineSpine; 2022-08-15 at 04:38 PM.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Algorath View Post
    No.

    However I think cross-realm, cross-faction, no boundaries 20-man mythic raids should be a thing from the get-go. Absolutely no reason why it isn't.
    Agree, but we also need a better in-game social tools for that.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    I used to think that mythic should stay mythic. But after the Sepulcher, I think that the gap between RWF and other mythic guilds is so vast that WoW can use another, ultimate tier of raiding. Mythic then can be moved to 10/20
    Just add a tournament realm and have Mythic launch there first. Then release a version of Mythic that is at about the difficulty of Mythic after a couple of months of nerfs.
    And yeah, make Mythic cross realm.

  15. #255
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Just add a tournament realm and have Mythic launch there first. Then release a version of Mythic that is at about the difficulty of Mythic after a couple of months of nerfs.
    And yeah, make Mythic cross realm.
    Putting the RWF on the tournament realm means Blizzard is implicitly supporting the race. This means that they now have to qualify who can or cannot participate in the race. It means that we now have to discuss what kind of gear is appropriate for the race. It means that for all these raiders who are investing tons of time into the race that they do not get any gear or recognition for their efforts on the live realms. (I guess they could add an achievement or a banner lmfao, yeah. That'll go over well.) Oh and let's not forget Blizzard's immaculate track record with eSports. They surely wouldn't unintentionally fuck it up, right? Right?

    Meanwhile, the alternative is that Bilzzard does literally fucking nothing and the event still generates ridiculous amounts of free exposure for the game.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    Pssst if anything it would crater prices of boosting services also no your looy idea is utterly idiotic
    It would crater them, but why encourage it further at all?

    Of course my loot idea is utterly idiotic, but it's the only decent solution to that problem.
    My solution is to simply keep mythic raid lockouts the way that they are.

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    2. Stop broadly responding with "prove it".
    Then stop making unproven statements. Easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Provide your counter-point or ask a specific clarifying question. I am not going to write a waste of time essay like you. Be specific.
    You have not provided evidence for your claims. And I HAVE been specific - I've even dissected several of your claims into separate parts, explaining why they're problematic and what parts, SPECIFICALLY, I'd need proved.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    3. Stop saying shit like "...how do you show that the ONLY way...". You are requesting syllogistic reasoning for things
    BULLSHIT.

    I want you to know the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions, which you've DEMONSTRABLY gotten wrong. You claim "X is because Y", when nothing says that X must be because Y and nothing else - I've even GIVEN YOU other possible explanations and asked you to explain them.

    I've given you an analogy, too - you're claiming "your lawn is wet, therefore you turned your sprinklers on" and I'm going "uh, you know it could have also just RAINED today, right?".

    This is absolutely basic, elementary, high-school level logic. No one is talking about syllogisms. Complaining because someone wants you to get fucking CAUSALITY right is kindergarten bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I have repeatedly and emphatically said are REASONABLE BELIEFS BASED ON INDUCTION, not hard facts about the universe that I have 100% knowledge of.
    Also bullshit. You haven't (correctly) inductively reasoned anywhere, you've extrapolated from unproven premises, made logically inconsistent statements (see above), and committed at least two logical fallacies (argument from authority and argumentum ad hominem). Inductive reasoning can't increase the level of certainty beyond the level of certainty already present in the premises. If your premise is unproven, you can do induction all you want, you won't get to a proven conclusion unless it's trivial or not actually connected to the premise (in which case it's structurally invalid anyway).

    Show me an example from the post (with quotes) where you performed proper inductive reasoning. I'll be happy to say I'm wrong when shown that is actually the case.

  18. #258
    ...as someone else suggested, get a room / go into PMs NineSpine and Biomega.

  19. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Then stop making unproven statements. Easy.

    You have not provided evidence for your claims. And I HAVE been specific - I've even dissected several of your claims into separate parts, explaining why they're problematic and what parts, SPECIFICALLY, I'd need proved.

    BULLSHIT.

    I want you to know the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions, which you've DEMONSTRABLY gotten wrong. You claim "X is because Y", when nothing says that X must be because Y and nothing else - I've even GIVEN YOU other possible explanations and asked you to explain them.

    I've given you an analogy, too - you're claiming "your lawn is wet, therefore you turned your sprinklers on" and I'm going "uh, you know it could have also just RAINED today, right?".

    This is absolutely basic, elementary, high-school level logic. No one is talking about syllogisms. Complaining because someone wants you to get fucking CAUSALITY right is kindergarten bullshit.

    Also bullshit. You haven't (correctly) inductively reasoned anywhere, you've extrapolated from unproven premises, made logically inconsistent statements (see above), and committed at least two logical fallacies (argument from authority and argumentum ad hominem). Inductive reasoning can't increase the level of certainty beyond the level of certainty already present in the premises. If your premise is unproven, you can do induction all you want, you won't get to a proven conclusion unless it's trivial or not actually connected to the premise (in which case it's structurally invalid anyway).

    Show me an example from the post (with quotes) where you performed proper inductive reasoning. I'll be happy to say I'm wrong when shown that is actually the case.
    I made a pretty clear request for what I needed for this conversation to be worth continuing.

    You ignored it, whined some more, and gave another philosophy lecture.

    Edit down your points to specific things relevant to the discussion, knock it off with the condescending philosophy lectures, or I'm done.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  20. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    I made a pretty clear request for what I needed for this conversation to be worth continuing.

    You ignored it, whined some more, and gave another philosophy lecture.

    Edit down your points to specific things relevant to the discussion, knock it off with the condescending philosophy lectures, or I'm done.
    I've also given you an ultimatum before, I believe. I even put it in the short form you seem to prefer.

    PUT UP, OR SHUT UP.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •