SwitchFade

Let's break down your explanation. So, by your explanation, you are "rendering a vote of no change from not any change." At best it's an incredibly confusing double negative. If I wanted to insult you, which I don't, I'd say something to the effect of how trying to use overly complicated wording to be as vague as possible when trying to argue over semantics only makes you look pompous and idiotic. But I'm saying that, I only pointed out how confusing your word choice is. If you choose to be insulted by that, I can't stop you from doing so. But you could also choose different wording to convey the same intended message. Which no one is stopping you from doing either. ---------------------------------------------- I see how you may be unable to understand, and perceive it to be from not clearly grasping my text, so I will repost here --------> "Null state, not any change. Colloquially, current state. Used in statistics, argumentation and analytical fields." you will notice the word "colloquial." This means: ADJECTIVE (of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary. I posted the meaning of null, and the COLLOQUIAL USE in three fields. this explains null state, "current state." Your quote of my meaning is understandably misstated, I hope this helps you understand better. ---------------------------------------------- You then said this: "If I wanted to insult you, which I don't," And I must be clear here, I did not say you insulted me. I said, please do not assign things to me. We can agree, these are not the same thing, I hope. ---------------------------------------------- However, your previous post in regards to something I did not post, was insulting. Perhaps your inability to understand the normal daily language I use is not an issue that makes me "idiotic," but one that would encourage you to delve into the meaning of regular daily vernacular I use? For example: ohayougozaimasu! Ogenkidesuka? Did you understand that natively, or did you use google translate? This is another language I converse in daily. Just because you do not fully grasp it, does not mean I am "idiotic or pompous." _________________________________ I hope this helps to clear up any problems you have had interpreting anything. Should it be insufficient, after careful consideration and due diligence around discovery of new and exciting words on your part, I am more than happy to further discuss the intricacies of language and lexicon. But please let me re-iterate, I do respect your opinion, and value your feedback. In no way am I saying your opinions on this post's main point are wrong, or that your views on this posts content are invalid, far from it: they are valid.

What is Null State suppose to even mean in this situation?? I mean, I agree that the logic presented by OP wasn't a good enough reason to change anything, but I can't make sense of the word salad your tossing out there to say you're being neutral. I appreciate you perceive that the native language I use from the geographic location I am from, and therefore most of my life speaking, is word salad. However, I do not insult you for not understanding me. Please return the favor.

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care. You are against changing it, based on your statement. Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take. It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one. I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general. I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically. These statements are incongruous. This is not a subroutine. This is not a program. There is no Null State, here. You're not coming back with no data and not changing the program. You are making a Value Judgement to the strength of the argument that the OP initially provided. This is not a Null State result. This is a rejection of input data in order to determine a decision. Your penchant for obfuscating noncomplex logical conclusions through superflous circumlocution is positively exasperating. Syllogistic Logic? Really? For those who don't know what Syllogism is, it's a situation where you have two statements and based on those two statements create a third, whether it's true or not is irrelevant. "All dogs are animals. All animals have four legs. Thus all dogs have four legs." The first statement is true, the last statement is true barring deformity or injury, but the middle statement? Not true. Syllogistic reasoning is why Diogenes ran into Socrates' classroom holding up a plucked chicken screaming "Behold a Man!" when Socrates described men as Featherless Bipeds. You misunderstand syllogistic reasoning, and have engaged in traps in syllogism. Here is a clear definition A syllogism (Greek; syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. I perceive a misconception of null state. Here is the basis of null, and it's use in argumentation Adjective English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any." Null state, not any change. Colloquially, current state. Used in statistics, argumentation and analytical fields. Again, you do not tell me how I think, and I do not make value judgements on things that have irrational suppositions. I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET. SO. I thank you for your perspective, I respect your feelings about the subject, I ask you to stop assigning things to me.

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care. You are against changing it, based on your statement. Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take. It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one. You are incorrect concerning my disposition, as only I speak for me. Null state, which is the present, and changes to null state are fine, should such changes be argued syllogistically. Logic. You BELIEVE that there is only for, against or don't care. *Shrug* ok. I see you think that. I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general. I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically. I have not even considered the change, as the logic is not syllogistic. Your decision that I have only three options is incorrect, as I choose for me, and you are not considering all values of null state. I have made no value judgement on this specific change, only on the argument for it, and thus cannot Advocate a change. Notice that not being for something is NOT the same as being against it.

I'm going to apologize for being insulting. I clearly was, and I'm going take this response as an attempt to reproach it. 1.) You said you oppose the change...Please pick a side...You are for the change? Your are against the change? It's confusing and impossible to engage if you are saying but then say 2.) English is English, but your use of terminology and jargon is not clear to me. So I'm assuming you know what you are talking about, but please don't insult me by saying that it's clear. It clearly isn't to me (that's why I have asked you to rephrase), and English is my first language, and I do have a college degree from an accredited US university. 3.) I'll exclude you from this statement, since I clearly have no idea where you stand...But the only people I have seen, that I can understand what they are saying, that have suggested a slippery slope, are people opposed to the change. 4.) In attempting to understand your viewpoint, I asked you to a.) rephrase and b.) provide a quote from the OP support slippery slope. You've responded each time I've asked, by repeating what you've already said. If it wasn't clear to me the first time, it won't be clear to me no matter how many times you say it the same way over and over again. So where are we at? I would truly, like to understand your viewpoint. I've asked twice as such. If you truly, want me to understand your viewpoint (this is your choice, not mine), then please respond with different words (pretend I am a high schooler with no background in philosophy) to explain your viewpoint. If you are going to call out the OP, that's fine, but please use quotes to do so, so we can all follow your reasoning. Like I said, this is the 2nd thread we've engaged in where I've asked for more information, and you've left me hanging...It's fine if you don't want to engage me...Then please don't respond to the comments I make. If you do want to engage, you'll have to pull me up to your level, but you won't do that with jargon. You've asked for time before responding...that's fine...If you aren't in a good position to engage fully than just wait until you are. I know mobile devices are CRAP for long threads like this in this particular forum. Cut and paste is tough on my mobile, sorry. Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone." <SNIP - overly wordy and not constructive> In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit. Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning. 1.) Never used the word "everyone". I said the only people who are suggesting that future content would be changed are those opposed to the change. It's not a line of reasoning, it's a fact. 2.) The OP never made any such argument...Maybe you want to use the quote feature and help me out 3.) This is all opinion. Except for the FACT that the only people bringing up changing additional content are people who are opposed to the change. However opinions lead to actions (hence a suggestion board), and actions have consequences. So we get to debate consequences here... Much of your wording is over my head, which I believe you intended, rather than stay on topic. But if not, please rephrase your points so that the lay person might have a better understanding? Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me. My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write. The OP's entire argument is slippery slope, hence, I cannot value the argument where is lacks syllogism. Should the OP do more research, and present a case for change that is syllogistic, I may then be persuaded. Until then, I say no change because logical fallacy invalidates the case for change. Logical reasoning would persuade me. My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change. Could you expand on why you think I used slippery slope reasoning in my OP? I have not asked for any changes to be made to any other arc etc. MCM Sure, I would be happy to simply expand on what I see, as an opinion only. May I execute this in perhaps an hour or so? I am on my mobile and it is very time consuming to cut and paste from said mobile.

Except that you do oppose the change, regardless of the reasons... I'm assuming, like most people, you are able to alter your speech as needed depending on your audience. Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am not, please rephrase everything you said after this, and please include a quote from the OP that supports your slippery slope? Ok, I'll retype the same thing. I am not opposed to a change or this one. I am opposed to illogic and fallacy. Change based on illogic highlights that the change from null state is neither reasonable, or good. So, your statement is false. I've asked twice for more context and both times you've just repeated yourself. This is the 2nd time you've done this to me in a thread where I've asked you to provide more information, but have been unwilling to (or more likely, incapable of) engage in a more productive conversation...This is not an argument, it's trolling at it's most basic level... So that's fine...we are done...please respond as you like...I won't be responding to anything you say going forward... Thanks for insulting me. I restated it again because English is English, and it's clear. You made a statement about people who see slippery slope. That statement included me and was wrong. You then said I oppose change. Which is also wrong. So, you are wrong when you try and speak for me. You do not speak for me. I said that. I told you why. I said I will not consider the change if it is initiated with FLAWED LOGIC. Now you insult me. Thank you. This is what is known as appeals to emotion in an argument that have no factual basis, in an attempt to win an argument. You cannot bait me emotionally into mud slinging. I will reiterate, your opinion is valid. The OP's OPINION is valid. Your statements of fact are false, WHERE THEY CONCERN ME. My opinion is valid. Please be more respectful and don't insult people.

Except that you do oppose the change, regardless of the reasons... I'm assuming, like most people, you are able to alter your speech as needed depending on your audience. Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am not, please rephrase everything you said after this, and please include a quote from the OP that supports your slippery slope? Ok, I'll retype the same thing. I am not opposed to a change or this one. I am opposed to illogic and fallacy. Change based on illogic highlights that the change from null state is neither reasonable, or good. To be clear, to oppose a change I must consider it. I haven't even made it to consider, because the arguement IS flawed. No consideration, a no vote on the flawed argement. So, your statement is false.

This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone." <SNIP - overly wordy and not constructive> In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit. Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning. 1.) Never used the word "everyone". I said the only people who are suggesting that future content would be changed are those opposed to the change. It's not a line of reasoning, it's a fact. 2.) The OP never made any such argument...Maybe you want to use the quote feature and help me out 3.) This is all opinion. Except for the FACT that the only people bringing up changing additional content are people who are opposed to the change. However opinions lead to actions (hence a suggestion board), and actions have consequences. So we get to debate consequences here... Much of your wording is over my head, which I believe you intended, rather than stay on topic. But if not, please rephrase your points so that the lay person might have a better understanding? Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me. My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write. The OP's entire argument is slippery slope, hence, I cannot value the argument where is lacks syllogism. Should the OP do more research, and present a case for change that is syllogistic, I may then be persuaded. Until then, I say no change because logical fallacy invalidates the case for change. Logical reasoning would persuade me. My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change.

You're entirely avoiding the point just to dismiss me and its becoming annoying. I don't want this changed because i don't think its a problem and i wouldn't want anything else to be changed for the same reasons this one is suggested be changed for. Its not a leap or stretch to make the assumption that this will continue forward to more and more especially when its been boiled down to a claim of misogynistic writing. No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting. It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality. And...so what? What if someone rewrote every single story line that has also been cited by those opposed to change. Are you suggesting that the existing story lines absolutely cannot be improved on? I'm really unclear here on what it is you are defending? Are you afraid that all of CoV will get reduced to storylines about people who fail to spay or neuter their pets? This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone." The original post is fallacy of logic based on "slippery slope" theory as defined very clearly in argumentation and communication. It is contrary to syllogistic reading and is one of the primary tools used by arguers that attempt to persuade others USING fear emotions. Proclamations about what all others are doing that are not their positions, that oppose your view, is also another fallacy of logic in argumentation, called straw-man theory; wherein a position is assigned to someone falsely, and then refuted to make the other seem wrong. In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit. Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning.

There are not 2 sides to the slippery slope. It is a logical fallacy used to generate fear. That's it. Slippery Slope assumes that once one change is made there will be no stopping future changes. But the fallacy is that you (or the Dev's or whoever is invoked in the discussion) is powerless against future changes. But that's not how life works. It's a series of decisions one by one... Erm, the colloquial meaning of slippery slope, or the formal meaning as proposed in arguementation theory, is that a fringe argument can be used to validate another, this pushing the argument so far from syllogistic reasoning that it is absurd. As an example, ice cream makes you fat. Fat people are lazy. Lazy people are a drain on society. Draining society is evil. Evil people kill people. Thus, ice cream causes people to commit murder. So, my statement about a slippery slope is accurate.

I agree, who really cares about Damage Meters, plus certain Blasters have some serious AoE output with their last ability. WoW was once a great game but Blizzard ran it into the ground with putting in Damage meters and other junk that was not needed. Blizzard didn't make the damage meters, the players did. In a similar fashion, I would think that we won't make damage meters ourselves, but rather you the players will. Indeed, I believe one of the good people at 4chan is working on one already. Damage meters made by players... DoooOOoooOoooOooooooommmmm

Sorry, no vote on this. The person is unhinged, regardless of gender. He thinks she's his gf because he's unhinged. There's such a thing as zealotry. By this logic, eliminating his reasoning for taking her life, means we should then eliminate other villains reasons for taking lives. Or change it so the victims don't die. And escape. And good wins. And then we should eliminate villains. And then just make everything city of heroes. And then eliminate villains from City of heroes. Then we just have city of social hour. I'm highlighting the absurdity of the slippery slope, obviously, but the reason is there's two sides to the slope, and many types of zealotry The story arc is villainous, and fine.

She's newer, and not in the wiki, sadly. Also, her dialog is like much of the new dialog, and her legs are the more recent, as well as her costume. It looked as though her bodice was an option in costumes, but because I can't recall the exact arc, I can't search to compare the options we have to her. Drat! Thanks for the feedback. Anyone else know the boss I'm speaking of?

Unfortunately, I would have to vote no, as metrics and their tracking of have dark implications. Also, whenever someone mentions WoW, I feel like a toilet was just flushed, and overflowed. Terrible game.

Dude. Message me in game on excelsior anytime, and mention this thread, and you can roll in teams I make for 1, 2 or 10 missions. Hell, I'll even let you afk in a farm map while I earn inf. None of us should be stuck soloing if we want to team, and if all you can handle is one mission, Let's do one damned mission together!

So. There is a Carnival boss that has dialog, and I can't recall if she attacks or is just an NPC, but she stands with arms crossed and is wearing a black corset top, mid thigh hose and boots, and all black. I can't recall the mission arc, as it was a PuG, but I'm not sure I can find her exact costume, or if it is even an option. Does anyone know, Carnival female boss/NPC, in mission all in black with the corset top/bikini bottom, garter hose and boots bottom and arms crossed, which boss and costume this is? We were moving so fast I forgot to screenie it, or write down the mission... Any help would be greatly appreciated.

To the OP, I'm not taking a position either way, and I did inspect your proof of concept, which does prove the point both ways... It can theoretically be done There's issues with clipping Which is why I stated that this was an issue on live, and one reason it was difficult to implement. Keep in mind I'm not saying I disagree, I was merely providing information. And, bare in mind that clipping is clipping, and behemoths already do this pretty dramatically. As I said, Keldian dwarfs are just about the upper limit, and I proposed this because they are larger than all other AT's, but the keld forms are costumes, so it may be different. Also, in thinking, there may be more issues with work needing to be done for costumes. I recall that much work was done over the years when costume pieces were added, to make them work on different bodies. I'd love to make larger or smaller toons, but if the Dev time needed to do this is lengthy, I would question if the priority should be low.

I hesitantly agree... On ONE condition, that there's an upper limit.

I think it may be easier to figure out if we have one point clarified... Devs, we know the bug fix is a done deal, and that's good. The bug fix caused the Rage fix. Ok. Now, the question is, can rage be changed to remove the -def, separate from the bug fix? As in, this can be done to rage without affecting the bug fix? If it is possible to get clarity in this it would help, as we would no longer discuss it if not possible. If it is possible, we can then propose solutions.

Ah, this one is tough. It's not that I think it's not a good idea, but I worry about anything that makes the game more autopilot. Things that take away the need to strategize, or interact, is what makes it less CoH. Hmm. In theory it seems innocent, but then there's less need to type in combat. Less need for support toons to have to plan. I have to, slowly, vote no. Because it sounds good, yet I can see how this would make CoH like other lame and non-interactive, like guild wars where no one teams or even talks, and everyone uses henchmen, and the game is not even an mmo, just a bunch of people soloing online.

"Roll the dice to see whether you get to play your character this mission" is NOT, and NEVER WILL BE, good game design. Ubiquitous samples of an allegedly hard-to-come-by substance or technology is likewise mutually exclusive with good writing. Your examples are all but meaningless because they assume quantum weapons (explicitly black box tech even to most of the people you would normally go to for super-science stuff) can be feasibly manufactured on Earth in sufficient quantity to meet the demand displayed ingame. This is an absolutely ludicrous assumption, on par with assuming the allies could spontaneously come up with force fields to counter nazis suddenly getting their hands on 22nd century technology (and for that matter, assuming the nazis would have the means to mass-produce the wonder-weapons in question). Thanks for your feedback. I hope you will join me in providing your opinions and insight in a respectful manner. I believe we can agree that being demeaning of differing opinions is unacceptable. I disagree with you, and think it is good writing and good design. I see you feel my opinion is ludicrous. I hope you will refrain from looking down on my opinion, as I have not done so concerning your opinion. Your opinion is valid, and mine is EQUALLY valid. We disagree, and I believe the current method is good, the writing is good, and the implementation is good.

Keldian lore is exceptional writing, and the design around it is exceptional game design. To speak to the point that every group has access to the alien tech when quants appear, when confronted with a threat and having no way to counter it, one would seek out methods of doing just that. A few examples... The US asking for help when fighting for independence The allies, when being overrun by the axis Police departments when in need of tech to counter criminal threat These are bland examples. The tech is out there to defeat my foes? Go get the tech, pay whatever price... Outcasts have quant guns. So, good lore and good design.

Exactly. Which is correctly stating why aggro cannot simply be changed, nor should it be done so arbitrarily. As I have tried to impart, the domino affect of such a change is astronomical.

Hmm. It may have to be more immediate, as some fights are over quickly. Many of them, actually, so the effect may not do much. So perhaps it's best to think of a tank, in real world terms. What is the unique facet? He's intimidating. He's impossible to ignore. It's evident that if you turn your back on him, your survival is in jeapordy. His presence is so imposing that he makes you pause, you become afraid and mind locked. Now, I bet there's little things that can be added to taunt and aggro auras that can illicit effects around these that are hugely beneficial. A fear effect in taunt aura? Leaves them trembling in place. A "pull gravity type effect" in ranged taunt to pull foes off Squishies? Like a pseudo gravity power. A delay to initiate attack type effect? When confronted but something so imposing, foes stand and stare in awe. Foes that turn away from the tank, like when aggro is lost, take double damage from the tank, forcing them back. The mechanics exist. Perhaps utility adds to auras and taunt can focus not on aggro increase, mag increase, damage or any other such existing component, that brutes also have, but on unique utility provisions that would materially make a real noticable impact. That said, Dev time is limited, and the priority on the work required is questionable.