Guild Wars 2

There was a conversation in EotM about p/p thieves and the meta elitists, of course, chimed in using their favorite word:

It’s not viable.

I’m baffled at how this community can misuse the word “viable” so easily. Is this common or am I just pedantic?

v

Cries Of Sorrow.5864:

Second mistake you made: reading map chat

I don’t think there’s enough context here to really gauge whether or not they were misusing the term.

If the p/p thieves die, then not viable would be a good description.

Hmm maybe they should use the term… not ideal? Also this is a very vague statement with little to no context about what actually was being spoken about.

“Viable” as in 1vZerg battles of epicness? No.

Literally anything else in the game? Perfectly ‘viable’.

Saying ANY build isn’t ‘viable’ for mindless PvE zergfests is ignorant (outside of bunkers/healers maybe.)

A lot of people use viable when what they mean to say is not optimal. And to their mindset, if it’s not optimal its’ not viable.

It’s a definite misuse of the word.

And well,even if it isnt “Viable”,if I liked it I would still use it.

Actually,I already use it on my Thief,because I got bored of Shortbow,I wouldn’t say P/P is better,but it is a fun weapon to use.

Since I dont run Dungeons with my Thief,and in zergs one “less viable” build doesnt win or lose a fight,I use it without remorse of destroying other people’s fun.

At times a word will be appropriated to fulfill a purpose as a technical or context specific term. That appears to be what you are seeing here. Within the context of the meta or elite play environment anything less than optimal is, apparently, considered non-viable.

Technically they are correct (in at least one sense). Viable means capable of succeeding. If the goal is to produce the best possible results only the most optimal build is viable. Anything else would not be, “capable of succeeding,” at that task or achieving that goal.

Vayne.8563:

A lot of people use viable when what they mean to say is not optimal. And to their mindset, if it’s not optimal its’ not viable.

It’s a definite misuse of the word.

this……but there are varying degrees of sub-optimal. being on the high-end of “sub-optimal” is fine for anything but speed clear groups. being on the mid-range of “sub-optimal” might work for Pugs, depending on the class. being on the low end of “sub-optimal” should be reserved for playing solo (or w/ friends who don;t mind), as playing this in a 5-man instance hurts your party, and doing this in a zerg mainly hurts you.

Ashen.2907:

Technically they are correct (in at least one sense). Viable means capable of succeeding. If the goal is to produce the best possible results only the most optimal build is viable. Anything else would not be, “capable of succeeding,” at that task or achieving that goal.

There was no specificity in the context, I just fail to see the point of people tossing out the term “viable” with little to no backing. Using p/p might be subpar but it’s still viable – that is, as viable as anything could be without contextual use.

Vayne.8563:

A lot of people use viable when what they mean to say is not optimal. And to their mindset, if it’s not optimal its’ not viable.

It’s a definite misuse of the word.

At least I’m not the only one who’s noticed. It’s always just slightly bugged me when people misuse viable…I’m not sure if they’re trying to sound smarter or scare people into the metagame. Without appropriate context – I stand by the belief that anything is viable until someone wants to narrow down their criteria.

First mistake you made: calling the playerbase a community.
Second mistake you made: reading map chat, people like to talk in map chat they take everything out of context, talk about pvp to a guy who talks about pve takin all possible sense away, people hear something proceed to talk about it even when they’re 100% clueless about what they actually end up saying.

Ashen.2907:

At times a word will be appropriated to fulfill a purpose as a technical or context specific term. That appears to be what you are seeing here. Within the context of the meta or elite play environment anything less than optimal is, apparently, considered non-viable.

Technically they are correct (in at least one sense). Viable means capable of succeeding. If the goal is to produce the best possible results only the most optimal build is viable. Anything else would not be, “capable of succeeding,” at that task or achieving that goal.

EotM…Meta/Elite-play environment…hahaha…

hannah mee.7925:

I stand by the belief that anything is viable until someone wants to narrow down their criteria.

all you are saying is: " anything is fine, unless you have standards". why argue semantics, when you can apply it to actual play?

if you play w/ a group of strangers, there is a middle-ground between “i’ll play how i want, no matter what” and “meta or kicked”. you should at least adhere to that, if you can.

“Not Viable” in this context means that it’s weaker/not as useful as other builds and weapon sets.

Doggie.3184:

“Not Viable” in this context means that it’s weaker/not as useful as other builds and weapon sets.

The actual definition of the word viable is: capable of working successfully

Since you can use all manner of builds to successfully complete content (albeit less efficiently), viable is the wrong word to use. That’s all.

I understand what people mean when they use it. It’s still the wrong word.

Viablility is irrelevant in an area filled with uplevels, zerkers, and uplevels in zerker.

Pretty much everything wrecks trainlings who don’t even want to fight you in the first place.

Vayne.8563:

Doggie.3184:

“Not Viable” in this context means that it’s weaker/not as useful as other builds and weapon sets.

The actual definition of the word viable is: capable of working successfully

Since you can use all manner of builds to successfully complete content (albeit less efficiently), viable is the wrong word to use. That’s all.

I understand what people mean when they use it. It’s still the wrong word.

Thanks for the replies, Vayne. I was just afraid I was being pedantic when I see people using the word, but apparently I’m not the only one who’s caught it. I know what they’re trying to say, but I feel like misusing a term like viable could really hurt a casual player who’s looking for simple advice without the fluff of marginalized gameplay tactics that are only situationally relevant.

Relshdan.6854:

hannah mee.7925:

I stand by the belief that anything is viable until someone wants to narrow down their criteria.

all you are saying is: " anything is fine, unless you have standards". why argue semantics, when you can apply it to actual play?

No, standards aren’t really applicable to the discussion. Viability doesn’t immediately address situational concerns or context. Any build is viable sans attachment of roaming, PvP or dungeon criteria.

It may not be a misuse of the word as much as players leaving out the second part of a sentence, leaving others to fill it in.

For instance, P/P thieves are not viable…
- for fighting? Incorrect.
- candidates for certain roles? Correct.
- for completing dungeons? Incorrect.
- for dealing a certain amount of damage in dungeons? Correct.

For all we know they could have had certain roles or conditions in mind when they said it wasn’t viable, not that it wasn’t capable of fighting.

I’ve noticed myself doing the same thing for simplification. In real life I’ll word it out completely, but in games its annoying to type out so much, so I’ll just say something like “its not viable” and leave out the “to complete this dungeon in X amount of time”.

To put this in context, half the people who want to know about the World Boss in Frostgorge Sound ask, “Jormag up yet?” These are people who have fought the Claw of Jormag countless times and somehow they still use the name of this dragon’s master. And it’s not just because it’s a “useful” abbreviation, since “claw” is one syllable and three two letters shorter than “Jormag.”

Moral of the story: even native English speakers have trouble with the language.

Consequently, I try not to bang myself against the wall. If someone asks, “is Jormag up?” I’ll answer, “no, the claw hasn’t landed yet.” If someone says, “P/P thief isn’t viable,” I’ll respond, “it’s perfectly viable if you don’t care about efficiency or surviving long in non-zerg WvW.”

Or, as Zeppo Marx never said, “viable? I dunno, why not a bull?”

edit: surprisingly, in a post about language and pedantry, no one caught that “claw” is only two letters shorter than “Jormag,” not three as I originally wrote.

hannah mee.7925:

Relshdan.6854:

hannah mee.7925:

I stand by the belief that anything is viable until someone wants to narrow down their criteria.

all you are saying is: " anything is fine, unless you have standards". why argue semantics, when you can apply it to actual play?

No, standards aren’t really applicable to the discussion. Viability doesn’t immediately address situational concerns or context. Any build is viable sans attachment of roaming, PvP or dungeon criteria.

is the point of this thread only to point out that the word viable is being used incorrectly? then yes, to answer your original question, you are being pedantic.

you know what is meant by those using the word incorrectly….so this thread is just a self-indulgent announcement of a linguistic pet peeve.

Cries Of Sorrow.5864:

Second mistake you made: reading map chat

I totally missed this. Ace reply. That’s all that needs to be said. /closethread

The term “unviable” does not exist in GuildWars2. Anybody who thinks you need full berserker Warrior with greatsword to do any content in the game is a kitten ed fool, who just needs to learn the game.

I could walk into any PVE content in the game, and beat it using any build I liked. If you want to do a dungeon with a staff Necromancer using Nomad’s gear and runes of mercy, you could do it, and beat the dungeon without any issues.

The term “unviable” becomes applicable when you’re talking about the players who get a kick out of being able to solo Arah in 3 minutes 26 seconds to beat their high-score or something, which is ok if they enjoy it, and want to play the game like that. For example, to a player who wants to do speed runs and such other things, running anything but “optimized” builds is not appropriate, hence why anything else is “unviable”.

However, for the 90% of players, playing your preferred build is fine, and theres no harm in it, and you can still be “viable”. As long as you don’t die, and whatever you’re fighting goes down, its viable. If you run P/P Thief, and its fun, and you can complete the content you want to complete, its viable, just don’t try to solo Tequatl with it, because im not sure how good it would be for your health.

People throw around the words “viable” and “unviable” as labels for anything and everything, when most of the time, it is out of context. Certain things are unviable in certain contexts, but for the most part, you can run anything and get by.

People can’t even fathom others playing differently from them, and see it as “wrong”.

I ignore tools like that.
And I’m not going to be sorry that me playing my game my way gets their panties in a twist.

The fun thing is that they look to be taking steps to change, if not reverse the viability discussion. The amount of intentionally nonstackable stuff in the new pve content is pretty overwhelming.

Windsagio.1340:

The fun thing is that they look to be taking steps to change, if not reverse the viability discussion. The amount of intentionally nonstackable stuff in the new pve content is pretty overwhelming.

the mordrem mobs are a great start….just need more of it.

Substance E.4852:

Viablility is irrelevant in an area filled with uplevels, zerkers, and uplevels in zerker.

Pretty much everything wrecks trainlings who don’t even want to fight you in the first place.

Who bothers buy zerkers pre80? I was runnig around in level 40 gear in my EOTM zergs up til I hit 80.

Les gens cours d’anglais.

hannah mee.7925:

Vayne.8563:

Doggie.3184:

“Not Viable” in this context means that it’s weaker/not as useful as other builds and weapon sets.

The actual definition of the word viable is: capable of working successfully

Since you can use all manner of builds to successfully complete content (albeit less efficiently), viable is the wrong word to use. That’s all.

I understand what people mean when they use it. It’s still the wrong word.

Thanks for the replies, Vayne. I was just afraid I was being pedantic when I see people using the word, but apparently I’m not the only one who’s caught it. I know what they’re trying to say, but I feel like misusing a term like viable could really hurt a casual player who’s looking for simple advice without the fluff of marginalized gameplay tactics that are only situationally relevant.

The problem is that I’ve edited for a living and so word choice is really important to me. Everyone else’s mileage may vary.

As I’m often reminded, not everyone uses language formally or thinks about the nuances of words. I do all the time. So if you agree with me, you could still be pedantic. lol

Vayne.8563:

Doggie.3184:

“Not Viable” in this context means that it’s weaker/not as useful as other builds and weapon sets.

The actual definition of the word viable is: capable of working successfully

Since you can use all manner of builds to successfully complete content (albeit less efficiently), viable is the wrong word to use. That’s all.

I understand what people mean when they use it. It’s still the wrong word.

A word’s meaning can change depending on how the person is using it. Specific people who share their interest or know that person well enough will understand their meaning and it wont be wrong to them. This is one reason why Urban dictionary exists. =/

Windsagio.1340:

The fun thing is that they look to be taking steps to change, if not reverse the viability discussion. The amount of intentionally nonstackable stuff in the new pve content is pretty overwhelming.

Ran berserker, blazed through story instances. Blaze through open world mobs.

Had to stop being lazy and swap gs + sword/warhorn for gs + axe/mace to knockdown wolves but that’s about it.

I love seeing these people trying to claim the new mobs “counter stacking” or “counter zerker gear” when I can just roll my face over keys and kill everything like usual, maybe with an extra dodge or two instead.

Cries Of Sorrow.5864:

First mistake you made: calling the playerbase a community.
Second mistake you made: reading map chat, people like to talk in map chat they take everything out of context, talk about pvp to a guy who talks about pve takin all possible sense away, people hear something proceed to talk about it even when they’re 100% clueless about what they actually end up saying.

I personally believe most Tyrian Tyrians don’t have maps to chat about, much less maps with clues on them.

Ashen.2907:

At times a word will be appropriated to fulfill a purpose as a technical or context specific term. That appears to be what you are seeing here. Within the context of the meta or elite play environment anything less than optimal is, apparently, considered non-viable.

Technically they are correct (in at least one sense). Viable means capable of succeeding. If the goal is to produce the best possible results only the most optimal build is viable. Anything else would not be, “capable of succeeding,” at that task or achieving that goal.

Well at least someone here gets it. Thank you.

Doggie.3184:

Vayne.8563:

Doggie.3184:

“Not Viable” in this context means that it’s weaker/not as useful as other builds and weapon sets.

The actual definition of the word viable is: capable of working successfully

Since you can use all manner of builds to successfully complete content (albeit less efficiently), viable is the wrong word to use. That’s all.

I understand what people mean when they use it. It’s still the wrong word.

A word’s meaning can change depending on how the person is using it. Specific people who share their interest or know that person well enough will understand their meaning and it wont be wrong to them. This is one reason why Urban dictionary exists. =/

This is true and not true. I keep trying to explain this very point to people.

The whole point of language is to get a point across. If you’re using a word that can be interpreted more than one way, you simply can’t expect people to run to dictionaries to look it up. Therefore if there’s a better or more preferential way to use a word, you’re better off using it that way.

We can clearly see from this thread that when you use the word viable, you’re not necessarily saying the same thing than if someone else uses it. That makes it the wrong word to use, not because it can’t possibly mean what you want it to mean, but because the entire meaning of what you’re trying to get across will suddenly come into question.

Viable, hahaha for me that word is in the same league with “gogogogogogogo” and “……………………….. omgffs” and to a slightly lesser degree “sub-optimal”. It seems to be used often by people who are perpetually in a hurry, so it’s an excellent indicator of people I probably wouldn’t enjoy playing with.

I mean heaven forbid that a dungeon or other activity would take five whole minutes longer, the drudgery. I think the only where viable really applies is when you take a trait that increases staff damage but you only use swords. Or when you take a rune that has special effects for shouts, but don’t use shouts. Or when you gear for healing but you really never ever ever ever touch your healing button and it has been collecting cobwebs since level 10.

There’s of course nothing wrong with speedruns, I think I might enjoy the challenge myself occasionally. But it’s preposterous to apply its criteria to everything in the game including PUG groups in dungeons. Viable, lol. You know what’s not viable? Royal purple and Blood Red on your assassin character! I mean .. red and purple! /faint

I don’t know the context, but the person could’ve been referring to pvp viability of p/p.
No, need to start drama about it.
True enough anything goes in zerg content, your presence doesn’t matter. Basing your argument on something meaningless is in my eyes a bit weird.
You’ll make the thief community angry if you call p/p viable.
Has no acces to stealth unless using utility skills, so Sneak Attack can’t be used.
The auto-attack has little power and little condition dmg, basically mediocore at both, master of none.
900 range only.
You can ofcourse justify the “I-play-how-I-want” mentality, but luckily not everyone does that.

maha.7902:

Windsagio.1340:

The fun thing is that they look to be taking steps to change, if not reverse the viability discussion. The amount of intentionally nonstackable stuff in the new pve content is pretty overwhelming.

Ran berserker, blazed through story instances. Blaze through open world mobs.

Had to stop being lazy and swap gs + sword/warhorn for gs + axe/mace to knockdown wolves but that’s about it.

I love seeing these people trying to claim the new mobs “counter stacking” or “counter zerker gear” when I can just roll my face over keys and kill everything like usual, maybe with an extra dodge or two instead.

Well first, of course, you had to dodge, and you had to switch weapons.

More to the point, you beat intentionally easy content, that in fact was supposed to be beatable by most if not all 80s… and you STILL couldn’t GS faceroll it.

Now imagine all those regular mobs with those abilities scaled up to elites. It’s not unreasonable given the retaliation and the ground AE’s and the directional immunities unblockable attacks (as seen in bosses) that you wouldn’t be able to stack them.

takes a drink