A proposal for reworking the most tedious feature of AO: Modifiers

[Mr_hyperspace]

@pilles

cause I was right,

Oh hey, a subjective statement treated as objective fact in an attempt to throw off the opponents argument.

This is exactly the stuff that if I was using, you would complain about.

[anon50803445]

I mean powerful and blasted give different amounts of power, wouldn’t strong and blasted work better?

[pilles]

@Mr_hyperspace

Ok, but saying “this question is faulty!” And then refusing to understand the spirit of the question is dumb.

1. What’s the spirit of the question?

@Mr_hyperspace

Also, you have to understand. The obtainment method is NOT FINE. This is shown by the IMMENSE support this suggestion gets by most of the voters here, because they don’t like the constant grind for marginal stat increases just so they can PvP.

The fact is, the current system is stupid. You may disagree, but almost everyone else doesn’t. So shut your yap and let the player base of this game with a life enjoy it.

I mostly see people (including OP) complaining about modifiers being too grindy, I’ve already said earlier that I agree they could be made more interesting, so talking about that kind of steers away from the original suggestion

[Mr_hyperspace]

It’s joever antimodifierbros… argument lost.

/s

[Mr_hyperspace]

@pilles

What’s the spirit of the question?

The spirit is pointing out that they already are functionally similar. If the only difference is one layer of separation in method of obtainment, then they are already close enough that removing that wouldn’t make the game worse

[pilles]

No it’d still be the same fallacy, but your answer that I linked below would be a logical answer to the question

@darkbitlike

So are you telling me that the answer of “No difference because both increase stat without any downside” isn’t possible?

[darkbitlike]

I guess it’s the effect difference part that make it a no true scotsman fallacy.

[Mr_hyperspace]

@pilles

No it’d still be the same fallacy

@pilles

If the question had been “can you point out a difference, etc…” then your answer would’ve made sense

Guys I don’t think it’s worth arguing with this guy anymore, at this point I’m pretty sure this is just a super elaborate ragebait

[pilles]

@Mr_hyperspace

If the only difference is one layer of separation in method of obtainment, then they are already close enough that removing that wouldn’t make the game worse

It would cause it’d just create two identical separate features with different names, it’d be the same as if you could have two enchants on one item, but the enchants are separated into two groups.

I’ll say it again, I’m just arguing against OP’s suggestion. If the issue needing to be solved is modifiers being too grindy then increasing the drop rates (of charts or modified items) is the best solution to that problem

[Mr_hyperspace]

@pilles

It would cause it’d just create two identical separate features with different names,

No it wouldn’t, the method of obtainment would still be different, you get the essences from charts, as opposed to sealed chests. This suggestion removes the rng involved, which is an incredible qol change for anyone who doesn’t want to grind charts indefinitely.

[darkbitlike]

Well after reading what’s the “no true scotsman fallacy” actually is.
I’ll argue that this is NOT “no true scotsman fallacy”, because one of the conditions requires the asker to modify the question after the answer is given to specifically disqualify that answer.

However, there is no modification of the question, because you’re just giving out wrong answer to the question. Well, that doesn’t mean the question would always have an answer though.

[Mr_hyperspace]

@pilles

then increasing the drop rates (of charts or modified items) is the best solution to that problem

Opinion =/= fact.

We are backed by like half the active forumers,

You are backed by your own opinion.
We are not on equal footing here

[pilles]

I mean now it just seems like you’re forgetting what I explained earlier, there’s no answer to the question because he asked me exclude the difference I pointed out between the two mechanics that’s a no true scotsman fallacy

[Mr_hyperspace]

Yeah ok sure buddy

[pilles]

Idk why you keep saying I’m baiting, I spend a minimum of 3-4 hours per day trying to improve and balance the game, trolling/baiting on the forums wouldn’t be beneficial to that cause

[Mr_hyperspace]

@pilles

I spend a minimum of 3-4 hours per day trying to improve and balance the game

WAIT YOU ARE ON THE BALANCE TEAM!?

disregard this dudes opinion guys, balanceteam member detected

[darkbitlike]

Well I’m pretty sure there are no evidence that he have specifically excluded the answer after you have given it.
It seems like you were straight up not answering his question because you pre-emptively believe that the answer would be excluded when it was given. Thus it is not “no true scotsman fallacy”.

Well if you can prove it to me that he have specifically excluded the answer AFTER you given it, then you’re right in that regards.

[pilles]

@darkbitlike

Well if you can prove it to me that he have specifically excluded the answer AFTER you given it, then you’re right in that regards.

Let’s say two people are arguing about the difference between two concepts. Person A believes that there are differences, person B believes that there aren’t any differences.

Eventually, Person A points out a difference and that difference is the only dissimilarity between the two concepts. Person B then says, okay point out a difference except for that one. What logical fallacy has person B commited?

Person B is committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone arbitrarily changes the criteria for a concept or claim to dismiss counterexamples or contrary evidence. In this case, Person B has acknowledged that there is a difference but then shifts the goalposts by asking Person A to point out a difference “except for that one,” essentially dismissing the valid difference to maintain their original position.

This fallacy allows Person B to avoid dealing with the evidence that challenges their view by redefining what counts as valid evidence.

[pilles]

@Mr_hyperspace

disregard this dudes opinion guys, balanceteam member detected

thought so, bad faith

[Mr_hyperspace]

True, but here’s the thing.

Similarity is subjective, I consider them to already be similar because of how they function. You consider them to be dissimilar because of their obtainment method. I cant be committing the no true Scotsman fallacy when we both had different criteria to begin with.