Should flex mythic raiding exist in DF?

[Biomega]

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.

It CAN mean both at different times, but it CAN'T MEAN BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

Which one did you, a "literate human being", assume it to mean in the "definition vs. usage" scenario? Did you read it to mean "prescriptive definition" which puts it opposite of "usage"; or did you read it to mean "descriptive definition" which puts it as equivalent to "usage". Which of the two did you think makes more sense opposite "usage", the opposed one or the identical one?

This is the same shit with "opinion" all over again. Words mean different things in different contexts. Just because a word can have two meanings (or more) doesn't mean IT ALWAYS HAS THOSE TWO MEANINGS AT THE SAME TIME or that you can use those two meanings the exact same way.

[Caprias]

@NineSpine @Biomega

Can you two get a room or at least take it to PM's?

[Relapses]

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.

I don't think it's a fundamentally flawed argument to point out that up until recently FFXIV'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 FFXIV" is a particularly compelling argument for changing the way Raid IDs work right now.

[Biomega]

@NineSpine @Biomega

Can you two get a room or at least take it to PM's?

Probably a good idea at this point, you're right.

I think the point has been sufficiently made anyway: don't just make wild claims unless you're either 1. prepared to back them up with evidence; or 2. admitting they're just wild claims you make because you feel like it.

[Argorwal]

Mythic should be a cosmetic only difficulty and m+ should not reward higher than heroic ilvl either.

But if thats not possbile then no, because they "balance" it for 20.

Blizzard already has KSM and Aotc “relatively” close to each other in difficulty.

I don’t see why gear isn’t capped at heroic and then mythic raid and keys > +15 are both for cosmetic only.

Then people can focus on the progression aspect of mythic raid and less worrying about losing gear upgrades due to extending.

[NineSpine]

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.

I don't think "but it isn't wow" is a compelling argument either. WoW could stand to learn a few thing from successful, similar games.

Ultimate raids in FF14 have mostly been very comparable to WoW's mythic encounters, and the reality is the second half of heroic and the first half of mythic are not very different difficulty-wise, so if FF14 savage raids are similar to heroic then they are similar to early mythic.

[Relapses]

I don't think "but it isn't wow" is a compelling argument either. WoW could stand to learn a few thing from successful, similar games.

Ultimate raids in FF14 have mostly been very comparable to WoW's mythic encounters, and the reality is the second half of heroic and the first half of mythic are not very different difficulty-wise, so if FF14 savage raids are similar to heroic then they are similar to early mythic.

Okay but that has like practically nothing to do with the actual argument that I was making, which is that if this were introduced Mythic guilds would be compelled to sell IDs at certain bosses.

[NineSpine]

It CAN mean both at different times, but it CAN'T MEAN BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

Yes, it can. This is insane anti-logic, and you still think you are smarter than everyone in the room. You are throwing basic logic out the window by insisting that a category cannot contain multiple subcategories. Saying that the category "definitions" doesn't include "prescriptive definitions" and "descriptive definitions" is like saying that the category "dogs" can't include "small dogs" and "big dogs".

You are throwing categorical logic in the shitter just to protect what must be the most fragile ego on earth.

Which one did you, a "literate human being", assume it to mean in the "definition vs. usage" scenario? Did you read it to mean "prescriptive definition" which puts it opposite of "usage"; or did you read it to mean "descriptive definition" which puts it as equivalent to "usage". Which of the two did you think makes more sense opposite "usage", the opposed one or the identical one?

This is the same shit with "opinion" all over again. Words mean different things in different contexts. Just because a word can have two meanings (or more) doesn't mean IT ALWAYS HAS THOSE TWO MEANINGS AT THE SAME TIME or that you can use those two meanings the exact same way.

I read it to mean "definition", because that's what you said. It's amazing the amount of work you are doing just to avoid saying "I should have said prescriptive definitions". It's laughable. Do you think that acting like this makes you look intelligent? It makes you look unbelievably fragile and petty.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay but that has like practically nothing to do with the actual argument that I was making, which is that if this were introduced Mythic guilds would be compelled to sell IDs at certain bosses.

If only there was a broad solution that would stamp out the demand for that kind of behavior. Maybe something like a casual progression path that rendered the need for boosts moot.

[Biomega]

Saying that the category "definitions" doesn't include "prescriptive definitions" and "descriptive definitions" is like saying that the category "dogs" can't include "small dogs" and "big dogs".

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that when you use it in a sentence, you use it one way or the other, and you don't MEAN BOTH AT THE SAME TIME when there's context. Because while "definition" can mean both "descriptive definition" and "prescriptive definition" in the abstract, when you read "it's not about definition it's about usage" it CAN'T BE BOTH because one doesn't make sense (since explaining usage IS giving a descriptive definition).

That's like saying "animals" includes both "dogs" and "cats", but when you see "some animals purr" IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT DOGS in that context.

You're saying that anytime you see a word, it could be ANY of that word's meanings in ANY context, which is patently absurd.

I read it to mean "definition", because that's what you said.

But you agree that "definition" includes both "descriptive definition" and "prescriptive definition", yes?

So if you substitute either of those in the sentence I said, you get two sentences - one that makes sense, and another doesn't. SO WHY DO YOU THINK I MEANT BOTH, OR THAT I MEANT THE ONE THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE?

It's amazing the amount of work you are doing just to avoid saying "I should have said prescriptive definitions". It's laughable. Do you think that acting like this makes you look intelligent? It makes you look unbelievably fragile and petty.

In retrospect, I probably should have. I didn't think that sentence needed that kind of clarification since it only makes sense one way, but I guess not everyone parses language properly. The fact that you didn't understand (and probably still don't understand) that "opinion" is used in different ways, too, should have been a clue. I expected too much, and I guess that is on me.

[Relapses]

If only there was a broad solution that would stamp out the demand for that kind of behavior. Maybe something like a casual progression path that rendered the need for boosts moot.

Oh yeah, if only WoW wasn't literally another video game. Alas.

[Ampt69]

This thread just proves people inability to think critically. They can barely balance the difficulties they have now, so lets add flex mythic to it as well? Do you ever want raids balanced prior to the next raid tier? Like seriously, flex raiding was already a huge mistake, and people that partake of it, if they have a clue, sees how bad it is when you are missing just 2 people from a max raid, and how much easier it gets when you kick out that third to clear certain bosses. Of course as you kill bosses and get more gear the differences start to not matter, but for progression fights on new content flex raiding is a nightmare. And you want them to add that nightmare to Mythic?

How about just going to a guild that has enough people, or recruiting, like we all used to do before Blizzard started catering to every whim of a community of entitled babies.

[NineSpine]

Oh yeah, if only WoW wasn't literally another video game. Alas.

Yes, we all know the root of good, creative design is to fold your arms and declare there are no lessons to learn from anyone else, because this is a special snowflake that the rules curiously never apply to.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that when you use it in a sentence, you use it one way or the other, and you don't MEAN BOTH AT THE SAME TIME when there's context. Because while "definition" can mean both "descriptive definition" and "prescriptive definition" in the abstract, when you read "it's not about definition it's about usage" it CAN'T BE BOTH because one doesn't make sense (since explaining usage IS giving a descriptive definition).

That's like saying "animals" includes both "dogs" and "cats", but when you see "some animals purr" IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT DOGS in that context.

You didn't say anything about "some kinds of" definitions. You said "definitions".

This is an analogous conversations :

You: "Animals don't walk on four legs, they walk on two"

Me: "But there are tons of animals that walk on four legs"

You: "Obviously I was talking about the animals with two legs. If you read as much online about biology as I have, you'd know that there is a difference between two legged and four legged animals, but clearly you are incompetent when it comes to biology, so now I have to lecture and educate you about animals for three hours."

Me: "...but you said animals don't walk on four legs..."

You: "What do the words "four" and "two" really mean anyway? If we break them down to their latin roots, we can find many inconsistencies in application, so for you to insist that we fully understand what these words mean is invalid. In the third century a proto-italian philosopher by the name of Doranamus once wrote about the relationship between psyche and math, and if you read his work (which I have, obviously) you'd know that sticking to such limited definitions is not how real thinking people critically analyze these things. You clearly don't understand enough about philosophy."

You're saying that anytime you see a word, it could be ANY of that word's meanings in ANY context, which is patently absurd.

But you agree that "definition" includes both "descriptive definition" and "prescriptive definition", yes?

So if you substitute either of those in the sentence I said, you get two sentences - one that makes sense, and another doesn't. SO WHY DO YOU THINK I MEANT BOTH, OR THAT I MEANT THE ONE THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE?

"Definition" is a category that includes prescriptive definitions and descriptive definitions.

In retrospect, I probably should have. I didn't think that sentence needed that kind of clarification since it only makes sense one way, but I guess not everyone parses language properly. The fact that you didn't understand (and probably still don't understand) that "opinion" is used in different ways, too, should have been a clue. I expected too much, and I guess that is on me.

"My lack of clarity and the incorrect statement I made is actually proof of my brilliance and your stupidity."

Remember at the beginning of this entire conversation when I said you were obsessing over the definition of "inflation" even after I clarified, and that it was solid evidence of your lack of interest in genuine conversation? Do you want me to show you how long ago I provided the definition of "opinion" that I am using?

[Biomega]

"Definition" is a category that includes prescriptive definitions and descriptive definitions.

And if you substitute "descriptive definitions" for "definitions" in my original sentence, it makes no logical sense (because it creates a redundancy).

So why did you think to read it that way, as opposed to the other way which would substitute "prescriptive definitions" for "definitions" and then DOES make logical sense?

You're deliberately misunderstanding something to create yet another distraction from the ACTUAL problem, which is that you still haven't provided any evidence for your initial arguments (save one which you saved by adding a word, but in doing so turned irrelevant for the discussion).

Put up or shut up. It's really quite simple. Stop trying to create controversy where there is none.

[NineSpine]

And if you substitute "descriptive definitions" for "definitions" in my original sentence, it makes no logical sense (because it creates a redundancy).

So why did you think to read it that way, as opposed to the other way which would substitute "prescriptive definitions" for "definitions" and then DOES make logical sense?

You're deliberately misunderstanding something to create yet another distraction from the ACTUAL problem, which is that you still haven't provided any evidence for your initial arguments (save one which you saved by adding a word, but in doing so turned irrelevant for the discussion).

Put up or shut up. It's really quite simple. Stop trying to create controversy where there is none.

It’s meaningless to provide anything to someone who engages in this level of dishonesty, sophistry, and time wasting mental masturbation.

The funny part is that I provided the basis for my argument. Did I provide a dissertation and footnotes? No, but I provided the facts that I derive my opinion from. You basically blew past that to argue about definitions and sentence structure. You just ignored it so we could talk about this horseshit instead.

The problem here is that your opinion of yourself is so obnoxiously high that you project that onto other people. You think that a fact is something you are convinced of, so you assume the rest of us have the same god complex. However, unlike you, I think it is absolutely reasonable for someone to look at the same thing I am looking at and come to a different conclusion in this case. I am not claiming the level of certainty that you are demanding I provide sufficient evidence for. That is the key point you keep running past over and over and over again.

To put it simply: Sarah says she has a dog. That’s good enough for me to believe her. I tell you Sarah has a dog. You start ranting and raving that you won’t believe me until I produce photos, veterinary records, a genetic analysis of the dog, adoption paperwork, and three sworn affidavits. And then when I don’t you lecture me about philosophy for six days.

[Relapses]

Yes, we all know the root of good, creative design is to fold your arms and declare there are no lessons to learn from anyone else, because this is a special snowflake that the rules curiously never apply to.

I never said Blizzard can't learn from other games; but it does seem, again, rather dismissive to throw my entire argument out under this weird pretense of whataboutism. Like the guy I was discussing this with just threw his hands in the air and said "I'm sure Blizzard can figure it out," like... y'know. It's not the onus of the person making a suggestion to think about how what they're suggesting may or may not work, Blizzard's a multi dollar company and they have guys in suits with fancy edumacations and stuff to figure it out. They should just, like, add it 'cuz it'd be totally sweet if they did.

[NineSpine]

I never said Blizzard can't learn from other games; but it does seem, again, rather dismissive to throw my entire argument out under this weird pretense of whataboutism. Like the guy I was discussing this with just threw his hands in the air and said "I'm sure Blizzard can figure it out," like... y'know. It's not the onus of the person making a suggestion to think about how what they're suggesting may or may not work, Blizzard's a multi dollar company and they have guys in suits with fancy edumacations and stuff to figure it out. They should just, like, add it 'cuz it'd be totally sweet if they did.

Yeah because the game is really killing it. Don’t pay attention to the quarterly investor reports, those might fool you into believing the game is an embarrassing dumpster fire.

[Relapses]

Yeah because the game is really killing it. Don’t pay attention to the quarterly investor reports, those might fool you into believing the game is an embarrassing dumpster fire.

What are you even saying here? That because the QRs aren't as rosy as I'm sure we'd all love for them to be that Blizzard has no choice but make WoW a carbon copy of its nearest competitor? Like, okay. Fine, you can think that. But that once again has almost nothing to do with the argument I was actually making and serves only to detour the conversation back to the (rather boring, imo) debate of whether such a move would be wise for the long term health of the game.

[Biomega]

No, but I provided the facts that I derive my opinion from.

Thank you for proving my earlier prediction that you still don't understand how to differentiate the meanings of opinion.

You basically blew past that to argue about definitions and sentence structure.

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.

You think that a fact is something you are convinced of, so you assume the rest of us have the same god complex.

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 am not claiming the level of certainty that you are demanding

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.

To put it simply: Sarah says she has a dog. That’s good enough for me to believe her.

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.

[NineSpine]

What are you even saying here? That because the QRs aren't as rosy as I'm sure we'd all love for them to be that Blizzard has no choice but make WoW a carbon copy of its nearest competitor? Like, okay. Fine, you can think that. But that once again has almost nothing to do with the argument I was actually making and serves only to detour the conversation back to the (rather boring, imo) debate of whether such a move would be wise for the long term health of the game.

I’m agreeing that “blizzard could figure it out” is silly.

[LazarusLong]

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