You can’t say something is “viable” if its performance is below average.
in fact, you could even say, but you would be objectively wrong, which is the case.
2 Likes
viable /vī′ə-bəl/
adjective
- Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: synonym: possible.
“a viable plan; a viable national economy.”
- It is, but 200 corruption is viable half-geared; so it’s not a good indicator of strength, even if the game aims at that ~300 corruption mark to be the optimal place.
- I browse lastepochtools frequently, and a lot of these builds are shown at like 100 corruption in the attached video, which again can be done with random gear.
- Once again, lvl 90 is not a good indicator of build being viable or not.
- Ward builds feel much better, HP jumps up and down a lot, ward is much more stable; 4k ward will give you more EHP than most health builds on the same budget.
1 Like
Some things are subjective, others are not
If a ward build makes arena wave 1000 and an HP build makes 200, the HP build objectively does not qualify as successful or effective.
“Possible” is objectively not the definition for viable, therefore all builds would be viable, all times, in all scenarios.
2 Likes
Viable, in this context, means it can do all content. It doesn’t matter if it can do wave 1k or wave 200, it doesn’t matter if it can do corruption 300c or 1k. All that matters is being able to do all content. Which pretty much all builds can.
What you’re talking about is a build being competitive, which isn’t the same thing.
4 Likes
Being able to do all the content on its simplest difficulty is a terrible context, a context that should never be taken as a parameter as 99.9% of builds will fall into this category.
“Everything is viable, therefore is fine, look this, i can do wave 50, and corrution 80 all content of the game”
Does this looks enough for you?
2 Likes
Corruption 80 isn’t doing all content. You need corruption 320c to be able to do everything. And pretty much all builds can do that.
So as long as you can do 320c, can do all arena bosses, can do all dungeons and can do pinnacle boss, a build is viable. Everything else is simply pushing the limits. And there you enter the competitiveness area, which most players don’t care about.
4 Likes
It seems like his stance keeps changing. Keep in mind this post started as “get ward off my forge Guard” and now it’s “nothing but ward is viable anywhere!” and then it’s “but your definition of viable isn’t my definition of viable.”
5 Likes
As I said, this is a poor parameter, as all builds will fall into this category, in all games, in all scenarios.
all darksouls weapons are viable, punches are viable, the player who killed Lilith in tier 1 has a viable build, everything above that is competition.
all street fighter characters are viable, all mortal kombat characters are viable.
Now do you understand how the word loses its meaning? the weight? the relevance?
I didn’t changed anything, i can have multiple opinions simultaneosly. You are just using strawman fallacy because you can’t refute a single statement.
You’re conflating the term “viable” with the meaning of “optimal”
3 Likes
No, it doesn’t. In fact, in all your examples the answer is yes.
Viable simply means “If I choose this build/character/whatever, can I “finish” the game?”. If you can (in the case of ARPGs it simply means being able to do everything), then it’s viable. If you can’t, then it’s not viable.
Because if you simply define it as being able to compete with the strongest builds, then you’re not talking about being viable, you’re talking about competing. Because most builds are viable, but only a few are competitive. And this is the case for pretty much every game.
Otherwise, every single game in existence only has a few “viable” options. Which is just clearly untrue.
4 Likes
Everything you just said IS viable. Beating KH2FM Critical Mode with Zero EXP, no accessories, no abilities, and no equipment, kingdom key only. Is legitimately a viable way to beat the game. It’s just not recommended for the average player.
Viable literally, by definition, means “possible.” if you can do it, it’s viable.
Humans cannot swim to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. That is not viable. But humans can climb to the top of Mount Everest. That is viable. Can I do it in my current state of an untrained 31 year old? No, but that doesn’t make it “not viable.”
4 Likes
In my culture, people don’t usually use different words for the same meaning.
So we are in a debate about semantics.
Okay, I’m wrong about the global meaning of viable even though in my region this word is not used to mean “possible”.
To reiterate, I am semantically wrong. I recognize it, but that doesn’t change my point at all.
The difference is that now I will have to deal with a semantically useless group.
If everything is viable, I will have to specify whether it is viable good, viable average, viable bad, poor viable.
unnecessary work for semantics, for definitions.
“yes it is viable but it is a 1/10”
Back to the topic, yes HP build is viable but it is 2/10 while ward build is 10/10.
My point remain the same 
2 Likes
Just so everyone is clear…
So, please explain how I distorted your argument to make it easier to attack or refute while not addressing your actual argument.
Your argument was “forge Guard is a warrior and shouldn’t have magical barriers.”
I said “the only way for forge Guard to generate ward without items or using Paladin skills is to use Forge Strike’s telekinetic swords”
You then said “but forge guards stack INT for ward!”
I said “Ive never seen that. And Stacking STR is better for ward anyway.” and have since seen that none of the top 5 Arena forge guards stack INT. Further proving this wrong.
Then you said “but HP/Defenses aren’t viable compared to Ward!”
I said “but Ward literally gets better the better your defenses are.” and Makzi and DJ pointed out that HP builds are viable and you’re mixing up “competitive” and “viable”.
Now you’re saying you didn’t change anything and I’m using a strawman fallacy.
So again, where did I use a strawman?
You said my stance keeps changing.
If i say that my opinion is 1+1 = 2 and 2+2=4 and 3+3=6, don’t mean i’m changing my stance… i can believe in all of those numbers simultaneosly.
If you say that im changing my stance it means you are distorting my argument so it make easier to attack or refute, what strawman fallacy means.
Did you said i changed my stance? yes.
Did i changed my stance? point it.
Generates a burst of 300 ward on dodge with Smoke Bomb, but other than that doesn’t “stack” ward and is an HP build. Arena wave 1312.
So, does this not count because it’s a Falconer build?
1 Like
You may have all these opinions at once. But whenever I or others challenged your opinion, you changed the discussion to be about a different opinion you may have had. This is called “changing your stance” or as Makzi put it “Moving the goal post.”
1 Like
You don’t, though. Because what you’re talking about is summed up in one word I already offered to you: competitive.
Top tier builds are competitive, lower tier builds aren’t.
Now, as a general rule, health builds are competitive with ward. Which is why the top Sentinel on arena is a VK that doesn’t use ward.
What you could discuss is that FG is easier to get ward and make it more competitive than health. Because otherwise it’s just not true.
2 Likes