Change Confront and Assassin's Strike into a distance-closing attack

[Rudra]

4 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

That probably made a lot more sense when there was a full scale development team updating the game. Under the current state of affairs, I have no expectation that this idea is going to be implemented. Even if everyone in this thread thought this idea was amazing, I don't think it would happen. That's true of the vast majority of suggestions that are going to be made here.

 

Coming here to make a suggestion suggests to me a certain level of investment in the game. My real world concern is that people coming here and getting exposed to various degrees of derision will sour them on the community and further deteriorate the playerbase. In debates that are of no consequence anyway. That's the only practical consequence I see coming out of this. Do I expect people to read this comment and curb their desire to argue, pontificate and moralize? Absolutely not lol. It's just a thought.

 

edit:typos

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....

 

Because the dev team is smaller, suggestions should not be subject to negative feedback or opinions?! How is that supposed to make the least bit of sense?!

 

At least we have the game to play. And we have a dev team willing to read our suggestions and work on making the game better if they can. Since the suggestions we would like the devs to consider are posted in a forum, they are open to discussion. This enables the community to try and refine and improve possibilities. People are going to disagree on pretty much every suggestion. That is part of the feedback process. Sometimes it leads to a suggestion getting better and becoming more refined. More often it serves as a sounding board to highlight faults in ideas. That does not make negative feedback bad.

 

And by the way? The devs that read our suggestions can agree or disagree with the suggestion as well. So there is still a good chance of negative feedback, this time from the devs in the form of lack of implementation.

 

Edit: And before you say I am taking your post out of context, you quoted @arcane's post saying "People are allowed and even encouraged (“feedback”) to disagree with suggestions. If you’re one of those anti-disagreement types, expect lots of disappointment from life. Constant affirmation isn’t a thing in the real world." as part of your post I am quoting. So that is the only way I can read your post.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Rudra

[merrypessimist]

On 5/11/2022 at 9:08 AM, Naraka said:

I didn't ask about their leap skills, I asked if they can do a combat hop OVER a boss with just the character directional keys (or at all).

 

The answer to that is no, by the way.

[battlewraith]

4 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

There has been no derision here.

My dude there was so much derision that a mod came in to warn people to chill out. You'd have to have been blind not to notice.

 

4 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

And then there's been you calling people liars. And another poster claiming "no rational arguments", even though rational arguments have been the literal basis of the disagreements in this thread.

 

I called people liars because they lied. I demonstrated how they lied. Would you like it if I quoted you out of context, pasted your statement with someone else's unrelated one, and then claimed you were arguing for their position? My guess is that you would flip your lid. 

 

4 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Your posts in this thread, and those of the people who agree with you, have been full of little other than emotional pleas and counter-factual information. You're either refusing to argue in good faith, or you honestly lack the wherewithal to discern the difference between disagreement and derision. Please understand that your "No, you!" style of refusing to understand logical arguments isn't going to enable you to win anything, it's only going to convince people to stop talking to you. Both online and IRL.

 

It's fine if people don't want a proposed change. From my perspective, there are some things here that make the feedback dysfunctional.

 

1. As in your post above, lumping different people together as if they are saying the exact same thing, ignoring differences or nuance. 

2. Moralizing. As in your post above--ascribing a moral character to the person who doesn't agree with you or to a stance you don't like. For example, only a selfish person would want to change a power that someone else likes. Or someone who fails to see my logic is going to ostracize people not only ingame but in REAL LIFE as well (LOL). Keep in mind I've been playing this game since 2004.

3. Hidden assumptions or biases. An example is someone assuming a design principle such as the cottage rule without stating or defending that assumption. Or being against a proposed change for reasons unrelated to the logic of the proposal. Or waving away a proposal based on a previous discussion that is not detailed in the current discussion.

4. Dogpiling. You keep framing this in terms of logical argument. Its not a debate. For one thing, some things hinge on aesthetics or someone's subjective values. More importantly, the people defending the proposal have to respond to random comments from numerous people--often repetitive comments that were already dealt with earlier in the discussion. So sorry if this doesn't conform to your standards of a dissertation defense, I think it's reasonable that people might be somewhat vague given the circumstances.

 

5 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I know that you're going to see this post as an attack on you, but it's not. It's actually my attempt to offer good advice. Peace.

 

Thanks for the attempt. At least you've had a sense of humor in this. Take care.

[Rudra]

25 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

My dude there was so much derision that a mod came in to warn people to chill out. You'd have to have been blind not to notice.

 

On 4/28/2022 at 3:36 PM, GM Widower said:

Okay, I'm going to tell you all a little secret. If there's a suggestion made you really hate, do you know what's the best way to get people with colorful names to notice it? Yes, that's right, it's to make so many posts about how much you hate the suggestion that the thread grows three pages in an hour or two. If you don't want something to happen, perhaps you're better off ignoring the suggestion so nobody ever sees it. In other words: chill out.

My read on that is not there is derision, but that the argument had accumulated so many posts in such a short period of time that the GM Widower stepped in to tell everyone to take a step back if we did not want the suggestion. I see no mention of derision in this response. (Edit: A need for us to chill out rather than keep fighting over the suggestion, but nothing about derision.)

 

25 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I called people liars because they lied. I demonstrated how they lied. Would you like it if I quoted you out of context, pasted your statement with someone else's unrelated one, and then claimed you were arguing for their position? My guess is that you would flip your lid. 

I even made a post with just your comment and highlighted how you were proposing the suggestion should be implemented because it could free up a pool slot. Which was what everyone was arguing about before you decided to post your first comment. Reading your comments and thinking that is what you want, and then commenting on it, does not make a person a liar. By all means, re-quote yourself. I will re-bold your comment.

 

Then when I asked you to explain what you actually wanted? You posted a comic where the character apparently taunts off-panel, makes a brief monologue, pops 100 red inspirations, super jumps into a group of unaware or confused mobs from 3 different factions, then self-destructed in a mushroom cloud judgement power. I still have no idea how to take that comic.

 

25 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

It's fine if people don't want a proposed change. From my perspective, there are some things here that make the feedback dysfunctional.

 

1. As in your post above, lumping different people together as if they are saying the exact same thing, ignoring differences or nuance. 

2. Moralizing. As in your post above--ascribing a moral character to the person who doesn't agree with you or to a stance you don't like. For example, only a selfish person would want to change a power that someone else likes. Or someone who fails to see my logic is going to ostracize people not only ingame but in REAL LIFE as well (LOL). Keep in mind I've been playing this game since 2004.

3. Hidden assumptions or biases. An example is someone assuming a design principle such as the cottage rule without stating or defending that assumption. Or being against a proposed change for reasons unrelated to the logic of the proposal. Or waving away a proposal based on a previous discussion that is not detailed in the current discussion.

4. Dogpiling. You keep framing this in terms of logical argument. Its not a debate. For one thing, some things hinge on aesthetics or someone's subjective values. More importantly, the people defending the proposal have to respond to random comments from numerous people--often repetitive comments that were already dealt with earlier in the discussion. So sorry if this doesn't conform to your standards of a dissertation defense, I think it's reasonable that people might be somewhat vague given the circumstances.

People can only infer from available information. The way your posts read as compared to the OP, it was inevitable for them to be read as being the same idea. If you want to stand out as a different idea from the OP? Clarify your post with as much information about your intent as possible. (Edit: Something, something, not psychic, something, something....)

Edited May 15, 2022 by Rudra

[battlewraith]

On 5/12/2022 at 10:44 AM, GM Impervium said:

 

IIRC, Mighty Leap has a PBAoE KD effect when you take off called... uhm, "Take Off", which also increases jump height/speed. Whether that's actually useful or not, I'll leave up for debate.

And also, holy heck guys, it's gotten a bit heated in here, can we cool it down a notch?

 

[Rudra]

A notice that tempers are flaring is not a comment about derision.

[Arbegla]

I was here at the beginning, and argued a bit. But now, we're arguing over definitions of words. So here we are.

[Rudra]

Not seeing the relevance. As the definition states, it is contemptuous ridicule or mockery. Not disagreement. No one made any attempts to ridicule or mock anything in this thread. Feel free to provide quotes from the thread you hold to be derision. I saw none.

 

To expand on the provided definition:

 

ridicule

[ rid-i-kyool ]

See synonyms for: ridicule / ridiculed / ridicules / ridiculing on Thesaurus.com

---

noun

speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision.

verb (used with object), rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing.

to deride; make fun of.

 

 

mockery

[ mok-uh-ree ]

See synonyms for mockery on Thesaurus.com

---

noun, plural mock·er·ies.

ridicule, contempt, or derision.

a derisive, imitative action or speech.

a subject or occasion of derision.

an imitation, especially of a ridiculous or unsatisfactory kind.

a mocking pretense; travesty: a mockery of justice.

something absurdly or offensively inadequate or unfitting.

 

No one made fun of anyone in this thread. Quoting people to highlight their own words as reminder of commentary or to illustrate a point is not imitative action or speech. There was no contempt. There was emphatic disagreement with the thread. There was equally emphatic defense of the thread. There was no derision.

 

Edit: If this response is what you were trying to convey with your provided definition, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Rudra

[arcane]

I mean I did jokingly call someone a n00b right after they waltzed in and loudly called everyone ignorant, so maybe that counts as ridicule or mockery.

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

No one made fun of anyone in this thread. Quoting people to highlight their own words as reminder of commentary or to illustrate a point is not imitative action or speech. There was no contempt. There was emphatic disagreement with the thread. There was equally emphatic defense of the thread. There was no derision.

 

 

Well I did my best to ignore you, because you don't listen, misrepresent other people, and now are hell bent on defining your way into some sort of semantic victory--but this is just too silly to pass up. 

 

This is particular exchange the happened shortly prior to the mod showing up:

 

May 12th. Luminara said:

 

But making other people take a pool power for something they think they need, and previously had but lost because a few players threw temper tantrums about having to follow the same game rules as everyone else, is cool.

 

Yeah..."

 

Sounds like mockery to me. I said that was exaggerated and judgmental. That didn't go over well, and she responded with this:

 

The people supporting the idea have said, "I shouldn't have to take a pool power because <REASONS!>", and "Other people should have to take a pool power because <REASONS!>".  These comments were made.  Not implied, not inferred, outright stated.  Pointing out the monumental hypocrisy of bitching because you have to take a pool power to do something, and simultaneously declaring that other people should have to take a pool power to do something just so you don't have to, is not exaggeration or casting aspersion, it's highlighting the arrogance of the tiny minority who made those statements.

 

If you shouldn't have to take a pool power to do something, then neither should anyone else.  If "they can just take a pool power" is sufficient justification for your request to change the tame so you don't have to take a pool power, then your justification is applicable to your own request, you can can just take a pool power.  Expecting the game to change to suit your whims, and everyone to meekly submit because it's what you want, is arrogant, entitled and selfish.  And that's not judgmental, it's objective observation.

 

You are not the center of this world.  Deal with it.

 

So charges of monumental hypocrisy, arrogance, entitlement, and selfishness. I'm sure you'll go running to your online dictionary to find a way to dismiss this but methinks you have cast too wide a net between ridicule, mockery, contempt, etc. And this sort of language is why the mod came in. Not because people were emphatic, gimme a break.

 

 

On 5/14/2022 at 8:13 PM, Rudra said:

People can only infer from available information. The way your posts read as compared to the OP, it was inevitable for them to be read as being the same idea. If you want to stand out as a different idea from the OP? Clarify your post with as much information about your intent as possible. (Edit: Something, something, not psychic, something, something....)

 

Your psychic powers are not in question, it's your ability to read. I went back and looked over the conversation and I make an effort, from the get-go to differentiate myself from the OP. The problem is that posters like you either ignored it or assumed that this was a  sneaky, moustache twirling effort to sneak in combat teleport. People quoted things I said and I responded to those quotes. At one point arcane threatened to quote me about something and I told him to this:

 

1. Quote away if that's your thing. Just only quote me, I'm not responsible for other people's comments. Saying that it would be nice to not dip into a power pool is not the same as saying this change would be good with respect to easing build restrictions. There is a lot more to unpack in the latter.

 

So about seven posts later, you do the exact opposite. You make a big wall of text that starts with a couple from the OP and then you attach my unrelated posts.  You don't read. You don't understand. Or you intentionally lie to try to win an argument. When I complained about the wall of text with the OPs posts, you doubled down on it. So I'm going with lying.

 

 

 

 

[arcane]

Also why is this thread still kickin

[Rudra]

Like I said, I saw none. Even with your quotes, I still see none. I do not read those posts as being mocking. Not even a little bit.

 

15 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

So about seven posts later, you do the exact opposite. You make a big wall of text that starts with a couple from the OP and then you attach my unrelated posts.  You don't read. You don't understand. Or you intentionally lie to try to win an argument. When I complained about the wall of text with the OPs posts, you doubled down on it. So I'm going with lying.

Did I not already address this part? The whole your post reads very much like the OP so of course that is how it is going to be taken? And then followed up by just quoting your post and highlighting where you said the same thing as the OP?

 

I sincerely believe you are simply trolling me. And I am tired of repeating myself, even posting your own quote by itself with the referenced part highlighted to remind you of what you said.

 

Even when shown your own comment with no other posters comments attached, you still deny saying posting what you said. Then you turn around and take:

 

19 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

But making other people take a pool power for something they think they need, and previously had but lost because a few players threw temper tantrums about having to follow the same game rules as everyone else, is cool.

 as derision rather than the obvious point it is. You argued that you want other people to have to dip into a power pool to get what they already have so that you won't have to dip into a power pool to get what you want and do not currently have access to outside of the power pool. That is the point @Luminara was making. That is not derision. That is highlighting your hypocrisy.

 

22 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

The people supporting the idea have said, "I shouldn't have to take a pool power because <REASONS!>", and "Other people should have to take a pool power because <REASONS!>".  These comments were made.  Not implied, not inferred, outright stated.  Pointing out the monumental hypocrisy of bitching because you have to take a pool power to do something, and simultaneously declaring that other people should have to take a pool power to do something just so you don't have to, is not exaggeration or casting aspersion, it's highlighting the arrogance of the tiny minority who made those statements.

This is a statement of fact as portrayed in this thread. By you and the OP. That is still not derision.

 

Your insistence that anything not in agreement with you is derision is infuriating. I am done with this thread. I will never respond to this thread again. I am tired of you claiming two contrary positions as one and then warping what is in this thread to justify your position. You do not argue in good faith. I can't even fathom this.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

I will never respond to this thread again.

 

Cool, see you in a couple days when you change your mind. Again.

[Ghost]

[Ghost]

Sorry 😞

couldn’t resist.

[InvaderStych]

14 hours ago, arcane said:

Also why is this thread still kickin

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'esprit_de_l'escalier

 

 

[golstat2003]

So in conclusion:

 

Yes to Gap closers.

No to changing existing powers.

 

Sounds good.

Edited May 20, 2022 by golstat2003