Why doesn’t everyone just chill a bit & quit the accusations before Sarno has to moderate things.
1 Like
I have nothing more to say. No need for moderation, I’ll head back in game
I think it’s reasonable to think OP is treating this as a finished game. It’s not about his feedback on features. It’s that OP kept arguing about keeping beta characters. If OP realise that the game is incomplete and that the progression “earned” is not based on release-level “balance”, then it should be obvious why it make sense for our current characters not to carry over.
Perhaps the OP is, but that wasn’t my point or issue.
I just see it as a category error. It’s kind of like “All Ford Mustangs are automobiles, but not all automobiles are Ford Mustangs.” I want to make sure that the two categories aren’t lumped together the way Gypsy made it sound (those categories being “people who are unhappy with a feature” and “people who treat this game as finished”).
There used to be a term for this conundrum. Unintended bugs pretending to be features.
1 Like
“Its not a bug, its a feature.”
I dont want this to derail the conversation. So this will be my last response on this point. But I do think (and we can agree to disagree) you have been unfairly harsh to Gypsy.
When I read his response I don’t see him addressing people who are unhappy with a feature. He is squarely directing his comment on people who treat the game as finished. You can claim he is also directing it at OP who would be someone we consider both “unhappy with a feature” and “treats the game as finished”. But then it would still be for the latter reason why he is responding to OP. I don’t see anything he said which suggest he is conflating people who are unhappy with beta features with people who treats beta games as finished.
I didn’t mean it to be harsh at all, actually. It was, in my mind, just a matter of fact issue. I also didn’t really mean to single him out, but he was the one who said it this time. I’ve seen others saying similar things and it’s usually said in a way to discourage discussion. Where it got weird is that he got all defensive about it instead of acknowledging how the two could be conflated.
This isn’t at all how I read it, hence my comment. Part of the problem is that people repeat a similar sentiment when someone expresses unhappiness about a feature, so it’s not very clear that these notions are so distinct among the people saying this sort of thing.
It’s also hard to assume he didn’t mean it the way he said it when he decided to attempt to deride me as some fresh college kid who just learned a new word. I got out of college a decade ago, for one. Two, just because someone points out a fallacy doesn’t mean they are wrong for pointing it out. Often they point it out to show a flaw in the rationale. He basically tried to defend his straw-man with an ad hominem, so I couldn’t help but laugh at the notion.
When I test my code I do it in production
1 Like
lol, jeez…
You don’t stop with the insults do ya? You’ve lost all credibility in my eyes.
I think you’re over-reacting and taking it way too personally. I got nothing against you. In fact, I like a lot of things you have said on these forums. That doesn’t mean I won’t point out where I see obvious flaws. People haven’t been shy about pointing out mine. The difference is that I haven’t called you names or launched personal attacks over it. I’m not sweaty about the fact that you did, but I think it’s better for everyone if we keep it civil and respectful.
Also, pointing out a bad argument isn’t an insult. This might be where we’re having friction.
This sounds like you’re on a personal crusade to “point out” what you perceive as “flaws” in others. This isn’t what the forums are for. You completely misunderstood what I was saying, and wanted to use it as cannon fodder for your crusade. I don’t appreciate that.
I am leaving it at that. I don’t understand why you felt the need to take that opportunity to try and throw me under the bus after it was already over and done with.
Not in others–don’t begin a new conflation, please. In their arguments. This is how discussion and debate works. “I think X because A, B, and C.” “There’s a problem with B, and it makes X either not true, accurate, or complete.” “No, B is fine because i, ii, iii…” etc. It’s not an attack on you or anyone on any personal level.
I think OP’s first two points are on to something. There are certain facts we “learn” the hard way from tunklab/planner, trial and error, or talking to other players:
- Unique information
- Which boss to farm, its required level, the droprate
- Set information
- “Good” affixes that actually scale the build
- “Added” damage/crit vs “increased”
- “Increased minion X” vs “Increased X”
- Possible uniques to gamble from item base
- Expected attempts for any unique
- Levels at which various uniques enter drop pool
Some people find it rewarding to learn such things the hard way. That’s fine; they can choose not to look at outside resources. I also think it’s ok to let players decide how much “help” they want, including from the game itself. For example, if I want to know as much as possible, I might choose the most generous “help level”. Kind of like a “difficulty level” but in reverse.
- Hold alt on uniques to show info
- Basic: Unchanged; can/can’t be gambled
- Some help: +Which boss to farm, empowered/not
- Handholding: +Exact droprates, set items plus alt text
- Hold alt on shards in forge to see info before crafting them
- Basic: Same info from crafting it and holding alt on item
- Some help: Show which active skills are affected by this shard
- Handholding: Show how much DPS this shard adds to each active skill
- Hold shift while hovering item in gambler to see gambling info
- Basic: Explanation that uniques can be rolled and the odds
- Some help: Popup of uniques that can currently roll on this item
- Handholding: Popup of all rollable uniques with level breakdown
This is how discussion and debate works in an ice cold, rigid, let’s just follow the fallacy rules that everybody likes to sit in the rut of. Throw at each other, but pretend that they are not insulting one another.
You like to play the semantic game, I can play that too. You never clarified what you meant by a straw man. It has multiple meanings. And since you made no clarification, I have no way to indicate if you were just saying that I was a person with no integrity or substance. That was an attack.
Relax Albino, we’re just some gamers looting shit.
So you’re upset because you deliberately chose the worst possible way to take it? And that’s somehow my fault? Then you think I was supposed to clarify on a mistake you repeated instead of acknowledging the first time–and did so in an aggressive manner?
I guarantee that if you divorced yourself from the assumption that I’m somehow a bad guy or meaning ill intent, you could go back and read this entire thing and see how silly this is.
There it is!! Dammit, I knew we would finally agree on something 
1 Like
What I do feel - and I already said it with other words - is that you have communication issues. You sound very different than you say you are. We - I - want to believe you, but it may be difficult when we always read “you’re wrong I’m right it’s obvious why don’t you change your mind?”. That’s not my idea of a debate.
I wish you all a nice day!
1 Like
I could read anyone’s objections this way.