Guild Wars 2

Ohoni.6057:

I’m showing that by accepting the logic you are using, we can reach the exact opposite conclusion, thus showing the logic to be nonsensical.

That may be what you’re trying to do, and those who already agree with you might agree with this as well, but you actually aren’t doing that, because the original holds up, while the modified one does not, proving nothing in the end.

And you continue to assert that there is some difference between the logic of the two, without ever actually proving it. So, as they say, assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Ohoni.6057:

Many people doesn’t make an illogical statement logical. Nevermind the complete lack of evidence of said people.

But it is not an illogical statement, it does not need to be made logical, it always was.

And our next baseless assertion. Do go on…

Ohoni.6057:

It’s based on the greatest good for the greatest number. If you say “it would be good to give everyone all the [food] they want.” you could then “flip that on it’s head” to the new “you should give everyone all the [fishing lures] that they want,” omg, same sentence structure, different words, the latter is ridiculous so the former must also be ridiculous. . . well, no. It doesn’t work that way.

The sentence structure was mostly to make it very obvious that the same logic was being used. And frankly, it kinda does work that way. Both statements were assertions, with no evidence or reasoning provided, so yeah, they both have the same flaws. It’s actually quite common in logic and mathematics, known as the principle of non-contradiction; essentially, if ‘X’ can be used to logically derive the reverse, ‘not X,’ then a false assumption was used.

Ohoni.6057:

The former is something that most people would agree would be a beneficial situation, as many people are known to favor having food available to them. The latter seems rather pointless because relatively few people would actually care about getting fishing lures. Again, you can’t just swap words around until a sentence breaks, and then claim that this makes any revelation on the original sentence.

And again, many people doesn’t make an argument.

I’m not breaking the sentence. The logic was already broken, and I’m just adjusting the terms so you can see it. Logically speaking, the two paragraphs were the same; they made different claims, yes, but used the exact same defenses of those ideas, and that defense is what I’m showing is broken.

Ohoni.6057:

Yes, it changes the meaning of the sentence. But it doesn’t change the actual argument, just the position it’s being used for. You can’t seem to grasp this.

The “actual argument” and the sentence go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.

Okay, let me clarify: I meant that it doesn’t change the logic used, just the end point the logic is used for. The actual ideas are simply being laid over a logical framework, like I was saying earlier with P and Q.

Ohoni.6057:

This is why your position fails. All you can do (and here this applies to you too, NeXeD) is assert your opinion. No evidence, no real logic, just good old assertions.

So? Greatest good for the greatest number. All that matters is opinion. Factually there’s no reason not to, so it all comes down to which side of the opinion argument is stronger.

I’m just going to stand here and laugh, while you both try to defend your broken logic and claim that logic and evidence don’t matter, without even explaining why.
And all this about no factual reason not to….no, my point earlier on was that Anet has no interest in doing so, and that they want exclusive skins for specific game modes.

I can’t wait for you to say that you don’t care what Anet wants, that they have a horrible outlook…

That’s the sort of irresponsible arguing that causes so many trolling ventures to fail. You’re forgetting the third rule.

None of this made any sense.

And you continue to assert that there is some difference between the logic of the two, without ever actually proving it. So, as they say, assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You made up some bullkitten troll post, I don’t have to “prove” how it doesn’t make sense. Believe what you want to believe about it, nothing I say could possibly change your mind on it.

The sentence structure was mostly to make it very obvious that the same logic was being used.

Yes, I got that, but it was using invalid variables, and thus ceased to make sense. I got what you were trying do do from the very start, I’m just telling you that it failed.

I’m not breaking the sentence. The logic was already broken, and I’m just adjusting the terms so you can see it. Logically speaking, the two paragraphs were the same; they made different claims, yes, but used the exact same defenses of those ideas, and that defense is what I’m showing is broken.

but your claim was an irrational one, while mine was a rational one, what you’re essentially doing is making the climate change denier position, “here’s something crazy, prove me wrong!”

Okay, let me clarify: I meant that it doesn’t change the logic used, just the end point the logic is used for. The actual ideas are simply being laid over a logical framework, like I was saying earlier with P and Q.

Look, I don’t know how your writing process works, and I don’t care, my thoughts are not “written over a framework,” they are what they are, say what they say, mean what they mean, and if you change their context then it changes the entire meaning. I’m not beholden to your rewrites. There is no framework, they are constructed of interlocking core concepts. If you remove or replace those core concepts with incompatible alternatives, then the entire structure changes, like trying to replace a bicycle gear with a pretzel and complaining that it won’t run anymore as if that should come a shock to the designer.

I’m not interested in debating with you about debate, that is not the topic of this discussion. This discussion is about GW2 League PvP and the related achievements/rewards.If you don’t believe that my arguments have merit, and the best you can come up with is to pick apart the structural nature of my arguments, then you’re welcome to continue to disagree with them. There’s really nothing I can do to help you.

If you would like to continue discussing the actual merits of what I’ve said, I would be willing to do so, but enough with the trolling nonsense.

And all this about no factual reason not to….no, my point earlier on was that Anet has no interest in doing so, and that they want exclusive skins for specific game modes.

“No interest in doing so” is not a reason to not do it, that would just be a lazy excuse. A reason to not do it would be something that would make things objectively worse. As there is no such thing, it all comes down to how many people want the change, verses how many people don’t want it, and whether the net balance is enough to justify the work involved in implementing it. You seem to want to believe that everything must come down to a pure, objective question, with no personal opinion involved. Life does not work that way. In life, and especially in a consumer entertainment product, most decisions are determined by a consensus of opinions.

And as for what ANet wants on the matter, we know what they did. We know that they likely thought it was a good idea, or they wouldn’t have done it. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be convinced to change their mind. Saying “it must be that way because it is that way” is a rather pointless argument to make. Anet has made a lot of decisions in the past, and they’ve backtracked on several of those as well, or branched out in a different direction that is more pleasing to both sides. I believe this is a situation in need of such a change, feel free to disagree, but don’t pretend it’s completely out of line with moves they’ve made in the past.

incredible. 5 pages of this.

who really wins?

maybe no one really wins

People playing for wings that the precursor can be earned in less than 2 weeks, but dailies require 60 days minimum, which turns to people tryharding for wings that can be earned by any mouthbreather in 1 year… IDK GUISE maybe it’s time to prioritize what you consider hard to get.

DeShadowWolf.6854:

Ohoni.6057:

I’m showing that by accepting the logic you are using, we can reach the exact opposite conclusion, thus showing the logic to be nonsensical.

That may be what you’re trying to do, and those who already agree with you might agree with this as well, but you actually aren’t doing that, because the original holds up, while the modified one does not, proving nothing in the end.

And you continue to assert that there is some difference between the logic of the two, without ever actually proving it. So, as they say, assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Ohoni.6057:

Many people doesn’t make an illogical statement logical. Nevermind the complete lack of evidence of said people.

But it is not an illogical statement, it does not need to be made logical, it always was.

And our next baseless assertion. Do go on…

Ohoni.6057:

It’s based on the greatest good for the greatest number. If you say “it would be good to give everyone all the [food] they want.” you could then “flip that on it’s head” to the new “you should give everyone all the [fishing lures] that they want,” omg, same sentence structure, different words, the latter is ridiculous so the former must also be ridiculous. . . well, no. It doesn’t work that way.

The sentence structure was mostly to make it very obvious that the same logic was being used. And frankly, it kinda does work that way. Both statements were assertions, with no evidence or reasoning provided, so yeah, they both have the same flaws. It’s actually quite common in logic and mathematics, known as the principle of non-contradiction; essentially, if ‘X’ can be used to logically derive the reverse, ‘not X,’ then a false assumption was used.

Ohoni.6057:

The former is something that most people would agree would be a beneficial situation, as many people are known to favor having food available to them. The latter seems rather pointless because relatively few people would actually care about getting fishing lures. Again, you can’t just swap words around until a sentence breaks, and then claim that this makes any revelation on the original sentence.

And again, many people doesn’t make an argument.

I’m not breaking the sentence. The logic was already broken, and I’m just adjusting the terms so you can see it. Logically speaking, the two paragraphs were the same; they made different claims, yes, but used the exact same defenses of those ideas, and that defense is what I’m showing is broken.

Ohoni.6057:

Yes, it changes the meaning of the sentence. But it doesn’t change the actual argument, just the position it’s being used for. You can’t seem to grasp this.

The “actual argument” and the sentence go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other.

Okay, let me clarify: I meant that it doesn’t change the logic used, just the end point the logic is used for. The actual ideas are simply being laid over a logical framework, like I was saying earlier with P and Q.

Ohoni.6057:

This is why your position fails. All you can do (and here this applies to you too, NeXeD) is assert your opinion. No evidence, no real logic, just good old assertions.

So? Greatest good for the greatest number. All that matters is opinion. Factually there’s no reason not to, so it all comes down to which side of the opinion argument is stronger.

I’m just going to stand here and laugh, while you both try to defend your broken logic and claim that logic and evidence don’t matter, without even explaining why.
And all this about no factual reason not to….no, my point earlier on was that Anet has no interest in doing so, and that they want exclusive skins for specific game modes.

I can’t wait for you to say that you don’t care what Anet wants, that they have a horrible outlook…

Please don’t lump me in with this loon, I understood that I was asserting opinions that was the entire basis for everyone’s counter argument and he just says “oh well that’s irrelevant”

Sarrs.4831:

NeXeD.3042:

They can gateway aesthetics all they want, performance is the only no no

You don’t even need to do well to get the legendary wings. You just need to complete Amber ten times which has no tier or pip loss.

The 4th tier achievement states that you need to advance 4 divisions within a season. That means reaching Diamond. Which, by the way, noone can do reliably without cheating the system.

Astralporing.1957:

Sarrs.4831:

NeXeD.3042:

They can gateway aesthetics all they want, performance is the only no no

You don’t even need to do well to get the legendary wings. You just need to complete Amber ten times which has no tier or pip loss.

The 4th tier achievement states that you need to advance 4 divisions within a season. That means reaching Diamond. Which, by the way, noone can do reliably without cheating the system.

It’s…worded poorly, I recall you need to simply cross divisions 4 times in a season, which could mean as long as you cross divisions during league seasons you will get credit towards the achievement.

…Still waiting on devs to confirm/deny, they probably won’t and will force us to go into the 2nd season to find out.

Sykper.6583:

Astralporing.1957:

Sarrs.4831:

NeXeD.3042:

They can gateway aesthetics all they want, performance is the only no no

You don’t even need to do well to get the legendary wings. You just need to complete Amber ten times which has no tier or pip loss.

The 4th tier achievement states that you need to advance 4 divisions within a season. That means reaching Diamond. Which, by the way, noone can do reliably without cheating the system.

It’s…worded poorly, I recall you need to simply cross divisions 4 times in a season, which could mean as long as you cross divisions during league seasons you will get credit towards the achievement.

…Still waiting on devs to confirm/deny, they probably won’t and will force us to go into the 2nd season to find out.

The way it works is you need to cross 10 divisions in total, it carries on to other seasons, it says on the announcement that it will take multiple seasons to complete,.

The one thing that isnt perfectly clear is whether the wings will be obtainable after the first year, anet keeps implying that they will be removed after a year and replaced with something else, so if thats the case then there is a minimum requirement for how many divisions you must cross each season to total 10 by the end of the year

Astralporing.1957:

The 4th tier achievement states that you need to advance 4 divisions within a season. That means reaching Diamond. Which, by the way, noone can do reliably without cheating the system.

No, I don’t believe that is what these achievements imply.

Look at the Primordial Legend achievement compared to the League X achievements:

League Veteran: Cross 2 league division thresholds during a PvP season.
Primordial Legend: Cross 6 league division thresholds during a single PvP season.

That Primordial Legend is written that way while League Veteran is not written the same way heavily implies that they have different requirements, and that Primordial Legend has the behavior you describe while League Veteran does not. I am not sure if they would change as you get into Part 3 and 4, but I do not have any reason to believe they would.

Ohoni.6057:

The sentence structure was mostly to make it very obvious that the same logic was being used.

Yes, I got that, but it was using invalid variables, and thus ceased to make sense. I got what you were trying do do from the very start, I’m just telling you that it failed.

I’m not breaking the sentence. The logic was already broken, and I’m just adjusting the terms so you can see it. Logically speaking, the two paragraphs were the same; they made different claims, yes, but used the exact same defenses of those ideas, and that defense is what I’m showing is broken.

but your claim was an irrational one, while mine was a rational one, what you’re essentially doing is making the climate change denier position, “here’s something crazy, prove me wrong!”

The only difference between your “rational” one and my “irrational” one was the position it was arguing for. Logically the two are the same. But believe what you want to believe about it, nothing I say could possibly change your mind on it.

Ohoni.6057:

Okay, let me clarify: I meant that it doesn’t change the logic used, just the end point the logic is used for. The actual ideas are simply being laid over a logical framework, like I was saying earlier with P and Q.

Look, I don’t know how your writing process works, and I don’t care, my thoughts are not “written over a framework,” they are what they are, say what they say, mean what they mean, and if you change their context then it changes the entire meaning.

It was a metaphor to try to explain how logic, or the lack thereof, underlies any argument. But if you can’t understand actual argumentation and logic, nothing I say could possibly change your mind on it, and frankly, I’m not surprised.

Ohoni.6057:

I’m not interested in debating with you about debate, that is not the topic of this discussion. This discussion is about GW2 League PvP and the related achievements/rewards.If you don’t believe that my arguments have merit, and the best you can come up with is to pick apart the structural nature of my arguments, then you’re welcome to continue to disagree with them. There’s really nothing I can do to help you.

Condescending much? If the best you can come up with is to be willfully ignorant of how logic works, then claim irrelevancies and walk away, I can’t help you.

Ohoni.6057:

If you would like to continue discussing the actual merits of what I’ve said, I would be willing to do so, but enough with the trolling nonsense.

We are discussing the merits of what you said. More accurately, we’re discussing how what you said has no merit because the opposite can be drawn from the logic of the original.

Ohoni.6057:

And all this about no factual reason not to….no, my point earlier on was that Anet has no interest in doing so, and that they want exclusive skins for specific game modes.

“No interest in doing so” is not a reason to not do it, that would just be a lazy excuse. A reason to not do it would be something that would make things objectively worse.

Citation needed.

Ohoni.6057:

As there is no such thing, it all comes down to how many people want the change, verses how many people don’t want it, and whether the net balance is enough to justify the work involved in implementing it.

scrolls back through thread Yep, that’s definitely working out.

Ohoni.6057:

You seem to want to believe that everything must come down to a pure, objective question, with no personal opinion involved. Life does not work that way. In life, and especially in a consumer entertainment product, most decisions are determined by a consensus of opinions.

You strawmanned that without even breaking a sweat!

No, I don’t believe that, it’s ludicrous and we both know it. You are arguing for a position though, and all you’ve really said in defense of that position is your opinion. That’s what I’m pointing out; your opinion is insufficient reasoning for this position.

Ohoni.6057:

And as for what ANet wants on the matter, we know what they did. We know that they likely thought it was a good idea, or they wouldn’t have done it. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be convinced to change their mind.

Ironic, considering the rest of the post.

Ohoni.6057:

Saying “it must be that way because it is that way” is a rather pointless argument to make. Anet has made a lot of decisions in the past, and they’ve backtracked on several of those as well, or branched out in a different direction that is more pleasing to both sides. I believe this is a situation in need of such a change, feel free to disagree, but don’t pretend it’s completely out of line with moves they’ve made in the past.

Except that that’s not what I’m even arguing. I’m not saying that it must be because it is, I’m saying that Anet doesn’t want to make all cosmetic skins available without serious dedication to a game mode. But I don’t think anything I say will ever change your mind. Good job strawmanning though.

NeXeD.3042:

Please don’t lump me in with this loon, I understood that I was asserting opinions that was the entire basis for everyone’s counter argument and he just says “oh well that’s irrelevant”

I know, I just didn’t want to be biased against what he said and not what you said.

The one thing that isnt perfectly clear is whether the wings will be obtainable after the first year, anet keeps implying that they will be removed after a year and replaced with something else, so if thats the case then there is a minimum requirement for how many divisions you must cross each season to total 10 by the end of the year

The thing is though, if a lot of people have like 3/4+ of the achievements done, and then ANet just picks up the football at the last second, there will be hellfire and brimstone raining on their offices. They can’t have an achievement that requires so much grind and not let people complete it.

The only difference between your “rational” one and my “irrational” one was the position it was arguing for.

Exactly. Your position was irrational, mine was not. How many times do we have to go back and forth on that?

Condescending much? If the best you can come up with is to be willfully ignorant of how logic works, then claim irrelevancies and walk away, I can’t help you.

Nor did I ever ask you to.

Citation needed.

Really isn’t.

scrolls back through thread Yep, that’s definitely working out.

If you’re half as smart as you seem to believe yourself to be, you’d know better than to imply that the response balance of a forum thread is indicative of any sort of mandate.

No, I don’t believe that, it’s ludicrous and we both know it. You are arguing for a position though, and all you’ve really said in defense of that position is your opinion. That’s what I’m pointing out; your opinion is insufficient reasoning for this position.

And what I’m pointing out is that it isn’t.

Except that that’s not what I’m even arguing. I’m not saying that it must be because it is, I’m saying that Anet doesn’t want to make all cosmetic skins available without serious dedication to a game mode.

And my point is, that’s what it is, clearly, but not necessarily what it must always be. That is obviously what ANet intends it to be at the moment, we have always agreed that your analysis of the present on this issue is crystal clear, the point of disagreement is in whether or not that state is incapable of changing. I believe that regardless of what their current intent may be, their future intent can be completely different, and I assert that it would be better for the game and the majority of the players if they did take a different path moving forward.

Sarrs.4831:

Astralporing.1957:

The 4th tier achievement states that you need to advance 4 divisions within a season. That means reaching Diamond. Which, by the way, noone can do reliably without cheating the system.

No, I don’t believe that is what these achievements imply.

Look at the Primordial Legend achievement compared to the League X achievements:

League Veteran: Cross 2 league division thresholds during a PvP season.
Primordial Legend: Cross 6 league division thresholds during a single PvP season.

But there’s no point in mentioning that “within a PvP season” part unless it means a single season – after all you can’t cross division borders outside of seasons anyway. If that’s what Anet really meant, then the achievement description is badly worded and heavily misleading.

Ohoni.6057:

The one thing that isnt perfectly clear is whether the wings will be obtainable after the first year, anet keeps implying that they will be removed after a year and replaced with something else, so if thats the case then there is a minimum requirement for how many divisions you must cross each season to total 10 by the end of the year

The thing is though, if a lot of people have like 3/4+ of the achievements done, and then ANet just picks up the football at the last second, there will be hellfire and brimstone raining on their offices. They can’t have an achievement that requires so much grind and not let people complete it.

They did it with every single meta achievement related to living story season 1

All of thise achievements required a lot of grind and were removed once they were over and added to the “historical” section in the achievement panel

So its very possible and quite likely it will be removed

Ohoni.6057:

. . . even more than I already did.

I mean, I never liked PvP, at all, but I still played unranked a few times a month to fill out my dailies sometimes. And it was usually awful, but I had a pretty decent win/loss average, and it wasn’t completely intollerable.

But now there are the PvP leagues, and for that you need to play way too many matches per day, and win way too many matches, with every character class, apparently, and it’s the most horrible experience that I’ve ever had in this game. I keep ending up on teams where the opposition is WAY stronger than the team I’m on, I haven’t been on a winning team yet. I don’t know how I’m meant to get the 40+ wins I’m expected to get to clear out just the first tier of achievements.

This is just horrible Anet. Make it better. Or at the very least, avoidable.

With every character class? Wait what?

We have to create other characters just to get the wings, then? What the kitten? Please tell me that was a typo or something. There’s no way they’d impose that on us. Please, no. Please.

They did it with every single meta achievement related to living story season 1

Totally different situation, preposterously different. different for several reasons:
1. The rewards for Season 1, even in total, do not add up to the Ascension wings. It’s mostly junk.

2. Even though it is mostly junk, players who did not earn it can still get most, perhaps all of it in some other form, from laurel vendors, special event vendors, karma vendors, etc.

3. The work involved is WELL less. The Ascension chain takes more specific effort than all Season 1 achievements put together. If they invalidate the chain at the end, even if they make the wings available through some other means, then that is a serious junk-punch, compared to the s1 achievements being a slap on the wrist, at most.

If that is their intention, if they do plan on kittening all those players, they’d best get out ahead of this and make their plans 100%, zero speculation clear RIGHT NOW. If they wait even until after league season 1 ends it would be too late.

With every character class? Wait what?

That was an early misunderstanding on my part, it’s only two classes. In my defense, the achievements are VERY poorly structured and not at all clearly documented.

Why do people so obsessed on that wing, it serves absolutely nothing, unless they introduce gliding in Spvp. people always rush things, charged blindly forward and get surprised.

As i don’t have the time to farm my glorious legendary journey, cos i believe i has the skill without showing those precious gem aside my name plate. i think, i’ll wait when they introduced my long awaited Elite-Wing in gemstore (more variety and lemme dye them pls). oh and i don’t mind them Gift of Gemstore being timed gated on every season before i can combined one, make it 30minutes availability on a said day and time for more income.

Why do people so obsessed on that wing, it serves absolutely nothing, unless they introduce gliding in Spvp. people always rush things, charged blindly forward and get surprised.

If they don’t want people to focus on the wings, then they need to offer some other way of earning them. For the time being, the wings are the ONLY reason to be in ranked PvP.

Ohoni.6057:

Why do people so obsessed on that wing, it serves absolutely nothing, unless they introduce gliding in Spvp. people always rush things, charged blindly forward and get surprised.

If they don’t want people to focus on the wings, then they need to offer some other way of earning them. For the time being, the wings are the ONLY reason to be in ranked PvP.

The problem with having an alternative way is people might think you earned it that way and not with your PvP skill.

And only reason? I think you’re getting motivation confused with reward. You PvP because you want to outskill another team and win and PvP rewards are a byproduct of that activity.

The problem with having an alternative way is people might think you earned it that way and not with your PvP skill.

And the problem with that would be. . . nothing. Nothing at all. Nobody would care. And those who would care, lol.

And only reason? I think you’re getting motivation confused with reward. You PvP because you want to outskill another team and win and PvP rewards are a byproduct of that activity.

Nope, couldn’t care less about any of that. I just want to get in and out as fast as I can. I play my hardest because I need wins to count for some of the meta achievements, and because it’d be disrespectful to my fellow players not to, but if you didn’t need to win matches to clear the meta I’d be perfectly happy joining an “AFK team” where all of us AFK through the match and get it over with ASAP so I can get back to actually playing the game.

It’s ALL about the wings, for me, and for a lot of players. If you think that’s a toxic attitude to take, I totally agree with you, but we aren’t the cause of it.

Astralporing.1957:

But there’s no point in mentioning that “within a PvP season” part unless it means a single season – after all you can’t cross division borders outside of seasons anyway. If that’s what Anet really meant, then the achievement description is badly worded and heavily misleading.

I think that basically means “gotta be a season running for you to be able to progress this achievement”. It is a little awkward though, yeah- it kind of implies that you can progress between divisions while a league is not running, which is a bizarre idea.

Ohoni.6057:

None of this made any sense.

The third rule clearly states that you should only throw away as much logic as you need to.

Ohoni.6057:

It’s ALL about the wings, for me, and for a lot of players. If you think that’s a toxic attitude to take, I totally agree with you, but we aren’t the cause of it.

Yes you are lol. Offense is never given, it’s always taken. Similarly, your attitude is nobody’s responsibility other than your own.

Ohoni.6057:

The only difference between your “rational” one and my “irrational” one was the position it was arguing for.

Exactly. Your position was irrational, mine was not. How many times do we have to go back and forth on that?

There’s a reason I put those terms in quotes. All you’ve done is assert that one is somehow less reasonable than the other, when they use the same reasoning.
So again, argument to the stone. The least you could do is stop arguing the same fallacy over and over after I’ve pointed it out.

Ohoni.6057:

Citation needed.

Really isn’t.

Because making claims about objective reality, providing no evidence or reasoning, and then expecting to be taken seriously makes sense…yeah, no.

Ohoni.6057:

scrolls back through thread Yep, that’s definitely working out.

If you’re half as smart as you seem to believe yourself to be, you’d know better than to imply that the response balance of a forum thread is indicative of any sort of mandate.

No, I’m not saying that it’s the be-all end-all of what people want. But talking about what people want, then disregarding the response you got doesn’t make sense. I’m not the one arguing about people’s wants, you are. I’m just pointing out that if you want to argue that, nothing here points in your favor.

Ohoni.6057:

No, I don’t believe that, it’s ludicrous and we both know it. You are arguing for a position though, and all you’ve really said in defense of that position is your opinion. That’s what I’m pointing out; your opinion is insufficient reasoning for this position.

And what I’m pointing out is that it isn’t.

Your opinion is insufficient reason for Anet to do anything. If it was, they’d also have to do the opposite of what you want, because someone (myself, for example) will hold the opposite opinion.

Ohoni.6057:

Except that that’s not what I’m even arguing. I’m not saying that it must be because it is, I’m saying that Anet doesn’t want to make all cosmetic skins available without serious dedication to a game mode.

And my point is, that’s what it is, clearly, but not necessarily what it must always be. That is obviously what ANet intends it to be at the moment, we have always agreed that your analysis of the present on this issue is crystal clear, the point of disagreement is in whether or not that state is incapable of changing. I believe that regardless of what their current intent may be, their future intent can be completely different, and I assert that it would be better for the game and the majority of the players if they did take a different path moving forward.

You made sense until you said ‘I assert.’ Yes, Anet’s future intent could be different, but you haven’t given any solid reasons why Anet’s intent should change, and you have utterly failed to demonstrate your assertion outside of your own self-centered wants. All you have done is assert, assert, assert.

Ohoni.6057:

They did it with every single meta achievement related to living story season 1

Totally different situation, preposterously different. different for several reasons:
1. The rewards for Season 1, even in total, do not add up to the Ascension wings. It’s mostly junk.

Even though I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here…what? How did you even get that?? Are you proposing that you can add up LS S1 rewards like you can add integers? Or that such things even have determinable, addable values?

Ohoni.6057:

The problem with having an alternative way is people might think you earned it that way and not with your PvP skill.

And the problem with that would be. . . nothing. Nothing at all. Nobody would care. And those who would care, lol.

So nobody would care except those who would care, and your answer to them is lol because you don’t actually have an answer. Got it.

Ohoni.6057:

And only reason? I think you’re getting motivation confused with reward. You PvP because you want to outskill another team and win and PvP rewards are a byproduct of that activity.

Nope, couldn’t care less about any of that. I just want to get in and out as fast as I can.

Both of you are getting reason to play confused with reward, so I’m just going to say it: the only reason to play is to win.
The funny thing is, both of you are so wrapped up in yourselves you can’t even see that other people play the same things for different reasons.

Sarrs.4831:

Ohoni.6057:

It’s ALL about the wings, for me, and for a lot of players. If you think that’s a toxic attitude to take, I totally agree with you, but we aren’t the cause of it.

Yes you are lol. Offense is never given, it’s always taken. Similarly, your attitude is nobody’s responsibility other than your own.

Nothing more needs to be added here.

Here’s a checklist for you DeShadowWolf, at least 2 will be used as a response to you.

- Ad Hominem
- Restating previous assertions as reality, without proof
- Deflection away or back to you on the subject
- Yet another Argument to the Stone for the triple

Though in an ironic twist if none of these happen due to my post here, well that suits the progression of dialogue in the thread far more than what is going on now.

There’s a reason I put those terms in quotes. All you’ve done is assert that one is somehow less reasonable than the other, when they use the same reasoning.

But again, “reasonable” is ALWAYS context-dependent. “I need food” is a reasonable statement, we need food to live. “I need chocolate” is an unreasonable statement, you can live without chocolate, you might want it, but do not need it. So likewise, to claim that there is a large player population that would care about having cosmetic items be denied to them is reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true statement. To claim that a significant population would care if titles were denied them for not completing the associated tasks is an unreasonable assertion, since there is no real reason to believe that this is the case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So again, argument to the stone. The least you could do is stop arguing the same fallacy over and over after I’ve pointed it out.

You’re the one that keeps repeating the fallacy, I’m just pointing out how silly you’re being.

No, I’m not saying that it’s the be-all end-all of what people want. But talking about what people want, then disregarding the response you got doesn’t make sense.

So what you’re saying is, if I walked into the party convention for [insert political party here], and I were to express a viewpoint strongly in conflict with that party’s platform, I should collect their response, and consider that data informative as to the response of a general audience? That would be useful information for determining anything? I simply cannot believe that someone who throws around so many big words as you do would actually believe that.

I’m just pointing out that if you want to argue that, nothing here points in your favor.

Actually, several people here have made statements in general support of one or more of my positions. That I don’t have the favor of the majority of the thread should surprise no one, nor mean anything.

Your opinion is insufficient reason for Anet to do anything. If it was, they’d also have to do the opposite of what you want, because someone (myself, for example) will hold the opposite opinion.

Again though, tallying up the responses in this thread would be meaningless because it is a biased population. I’m asking for ANet to reevaluate their choices, to find out for themselves how many of their players would be happier having alternative methods of earning these rewards. Even some PvPers are in favor of it, if only because it would give the non-PvPers less reason to mess with their queues.

Even though I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here…what? How did you even get that?? Are you proposing that you can add up LS S1 rewards like you can add integers? Or that such things even have determinable, addable values?

In a general sense, yeah. Individual tastes and interests vary, of course, but if you take the gestalt consensus of the player population, the Ascension wings would be of more value to them than anything in the s1-exclusive list.

So nobody would care except those who would care, and your answer to them is lol because you don’t actually have an answer. Got it.

You can’t please everyone.

Both of you are getting reason to play confused with reward, so I’m just going to say it: the only reason to play is to win.

But my only reason to play PvP is for the reward. If I could get that reward without doing PvP, or even by losing PvP, I would cheerfully take either alternative. I have zero interest in winning PvP matches, except as a means to that end.

Ohoni.6057:

There’s a reason I put those terms in quotes. All you’ve done is assert that one is somehow less reasonable than the other, when they use the same reasoning.

But again, “reasonable” is ALWAYS context-dependent. “I need food” is a reasonable statement, we need food to live. “I need chocolate” is an unreasonable statement, you can live without chocolate, you might want it, but do not need it. So likewise, to claim that there is a large player population that would care about having cosmetic items be denied to them is reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true statement. To claim that a significant population would care if titles were denied them for not completing the associated tasks is an unreasonable assertion, since there is no real reason to believe that this is the case.

The double standard could not be clearer; just imagine it read like this:
To claim that there is a large player population that would care about having titles be denied to them is reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true statement. To claim that a significant population would care if cosmetic items were denied them for not completing the associated tasks is an unreasonable assertion, since there is no real reason to believe that this is the case.

Ohoni.6057:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

LOLOL
But all we need is an opinion, right Ohoni? Or do we just need ‘no reason to doubt that this is a true statement?’

Ohoni.6057:

So again, argument to the stone. The least you could do is stop arguing the same fallacy over and over after I’ve pointed it out.

You’re the one that keeps repeating the fallacy, I’m just pointing out how silly you’re being.

I repeat it because you commit it…repeatedly. This isn’t hard to understand. I find it very interesting, though, how you don’t actually address the flaw in your argument, but instead you just make pretty much the same assertion again. So, argument to the stone again.

Ohoni.6057:

No, I’m not saying that it’s the be-all end-all of what people want. But talking about what people want, then disregarding the response you got doesn’t make sense.

So what you’re saying is, if I walked into the party convention for [insert political party here], and I were to express a viewpoint strongly in conflict with that party’s platform, I should collect their response, and consider that data informative as to the response of a general audience? That would be useful information for determining anything? I simply cannot believe that someone who throws around so many big words as you do would actually believe that.

No, you should collect their response, and add it to anything else you can find. If you have something bigger, useful, or representative, post it. If not, then we have nothing better to use. You seem to think that this also means we have to throw all skepticism out the window, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Ohoni.6057:

I’m just pointing out that if you want to argue that, nothing here points in your favor.

Actually, several people here have made statements in general support of one or more of my positions. That I don’t have the favor of the majority of the thread should surprise no one, nor mean anything.

That’s fair, a couple others have agreed with you. That said, I don’t think you’d be singing the same tune if you did have the majority. Either way, do you have anything better to use?

Ohoni.6057:

Your opinion is insufficient reason for Anet to do anything. If it was, they’d also have to do the opposite of what you want, because someone (myself, for example) will hold the opposite opinion.

Again though, tallying up the responses in this thread would be meaningless because it is a biased population. I’m asking for ANet to reevaluate their choices, to find out for themselves how many of their players would be happier having alternative methods of earning these rewards.

If the people at Anet and NCSoft thought they could do better with that, they would have done it. Not that you’ve given any solid reasons for why they should reevaluate besides your personal wants. I said nothing about ‘tallying up the responses in this thread’ here, but you couldn’t resist a strawman, could you?

Ohoni.6057:

Even though I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here…what? How did you even get that?? Are you proposing that you can add up LS S1 rewards like you can add integers? Or that such things even have determinable, addable values?

In a general sense, yeah. Individual tastes and interests vary, of course, but if you take the gestalt consensus of the player population, the Ascension wings would be of more value to them than anything in the s1-exclusive list.

So you’re arguing that the Ascension wings are ‘preposterously different’ compared to LS S1 because a group of people probably think that a collection of varying skins and items are worth less than a particular other skin. Even for you that makes no sense.

Ohoni.6057:

So nobody would care except those who would care, and your answer to them is lol because you don’t actually have an answer. Got it.

You can’t please everyone.

So just ignore all the people that disagree with you and make sure to pander to your particular wants because it’s you.

Ohoni.6057:

Both of you are getting reason to play confused with reward, so I’m just going to say it: the only reason to play is to win.

But my only reason to play PvP is for the reward. If I could get that reward without doing PvP, or even by losing PvP, I would cheerfully take either alternative. I have zero interest in winning PvP matches, except as a means to that end.

It was meant as a joke, but in responding to it, you made my point. lol

Sykper.6583:

Here’s a checklist for you DeShadowWolf, at least 2 will be used as a response to you.

- Ad Hominem
- Restating previous assertions as reality, without proof
- Deflection away or back to you on the subject
- Yet another Argument to the Stone for the triple

Though in an ironic twist if none of these happen due to my post here, well that suits the progression of dialogue in the thread far more than what is going on now.

I’m well aware, but it’s too much fun, taking apart the terrible arguments used and explaining how they fail. So, let’s see how we did:
-Ad Hominem: Not really, no
- Restating previous assertions as reality, without proof: YUP
- Deflection away or back to you on the subject: Tentative yes
- Yet another Argument to the Stone for the triple: YUP, and, on top, it was in response to the argument to the stone
So far batting 2.5-3 for 4. I’m going to add another couple to the list for next time: strawman, and double standard.

Ohoni.6057:

If you aren’t a pvp player then the pvp legendary is not for you,

Wrong.

You seem to have this completely misguided belief that legendarys are something every player is entitled to have regardless of their playstyle or effort put into the game, they arnt, they a LONG term goals for people DEDICATED to playing the game to earn them.

and I’m fine with that. I’m fine with it being a long term goal, I’m fine with having to dedicate myself to the task. No problem with either of those conditions. The condition that bothers me is the “AND you have to do it in this ONE specific portion of the game, whether you enjoy that portion or not.”

I think that there should be goals that require time and dedication.
I think that there should be goals that can only be earned in specific areas of the game.
I think that these two situations should NEVER overlap each other.

The wings are a PvP reward, if you don’t like playing PvP, then the reward is not for you.

Wrong.

It’s set up so that when you see someone with the wings, there is a prestige behind them and you know that they deserved the item.

Pssht, all it means is that they played a lot of PvP, what silly “prestige” is involved in that? No, when you see someone in the wings, it shows that they have pretty wings on, nothing more than that, and there’s absolutely no justification for restricting it only to people who enjoy PvP.

If they want to have something that conveys “prestige,” then it should be something that people wouldn’t want otherwise, something that ONLY serves to show that you have accomplished something, not something that would be cool and desirable whether you accomplished that task or not.

they have a backpiece for both pve and pvpers, PvP players were always “forced” to do PvE for the fractal back piece, so why is it only now u seem to have a complaint?… oh yeah forgot it never affected you.

this has been something in the game forever, ur forced to do map completion for the legendary weapons, PvE, your forced to PvE for Map Completion, your Forced to do fractals for the backpiece, your forced to do the New PvE lands to get gliding, your forced to WvW or PvE to get the Elite specializations, your forced to Raid to see legendary armour..

Please the list goes on, stop complaining about like 1 of the BILLION playstyle restrictive things currently in the game, u just sound like a idiot.

this game provides end game goals for every playstyle, and no they’re not going to be the exact same thing, its called Difference, why would a PvPer and a pver want to look the same?…. they want they’re own rewards to establish their Playstyle.

To claim that there is a large player population that would care about having titles be denied to them is reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true statement. To claim that a significant population would care if cosmetic items were denied them for not completing the associated tasks is an unreasonable assertion, since there is no real reason to believe that this is the case.

. . .

I’m sorry, I don’t even understand how someone could miss the entire point so spectacularly. I can’t even formulate a response to this, “it’s turtles all the way down.”

That’s fair, a couple others have agreed with you. That said, I don’t think you’d be singing the same tune if you did have the majority. Either way, do you have anything better to use?

If I did have the majority behind me, on a thread in the PvP forum? Yeah, that would probably have a bit more weight behind it, but lacking that majority where it wasn’t expected in the first place, who cares?

If the people at Anet and NCSoft thought they could do better with that, they would have done it.

You mean like with the first time they overhauled how traits work, or the second? They change their mind. Again, nobody disagrees with you that they felt they were doing the right thing when they made their decisions, so I don’t see why you keep arguing that point. All I’m saying is that they can, and it is my belief that they should change their minds in this case.

So you’re arguing that the Ascension wings are ‘preposterously different’ compared to LS S1 because a group of people probably think that a collection of varying skins and items are worth less than a particular other skin. Even for you that makes no sense.

“and yet it moves.”

So just ignore all the people that disagree with you and make sure to pander to your particular wants because it’s you.

No.

they have a backpiece for both pve and pvpers, PvP players were always “forced” to do PvE for the fractal back piece, so why is it only now u seem to have a complaint?… oh yeah forgot it never affected you.

Nope, I’m on record as complaining about the fractal backpiece too, and even offering better ways for PvPers to earn it through PvP alone. I’m opposed to exclusionary high-end rewards in all game modes, two wrongs don’t make a right.

this has been something in the game forever, ur forced to do map completion for the legendary weapons, PvE, your forced to PvE for Map Completion,

I’ve also been in favor of a PvP solution to that problem as well.

your forced to do the New PvE lands to get gliding, your forced to WvW or PvE to get the Elite specializations, your forced to Raid to see legendary armour..

Ditto to the last bit, although the first bit I don’t think is an issue since you can’t glide in PvP anyway, and don’t the elite specs fully unlock for PvP use? If not, that should probably change too.

Please the list goes on, stop complaining about like 1 of the BILLION playstyle restrictive things currently in the game, u just sound like a idiot.

And let’s fix all of them, rather than tacking new things on.

Ohoni.6057:

To claim that there is a large player population that would care about having titles be denied to them is reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true statement. To claim that a significant population would care if cosmetic items were denied them for not completing the associated tasks is an unreasonable assertion, since there is no real reason to believe that this is the case.

. . .

I’m sorry, I don’t even understand how someone could miss the entire point so spectacularly. I can’t even formulate a response to this, “it’s turtles all the way down.”

Incredulity is not an argument, and I fail to see how anything here is infinite regression. That said, let’s try it with something completely different:
To claim that there is a large population that would care about having couches be denied to them is reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true statement. To claim that a significant population would care if rocking chairs were denied them is an unreasonable assertion, since there is no real reason to believe that this is the case.
You can’t assert one thing makes sense and another doesn’t, give no evidence, and expect it to be accepted.

Ohoni.6057:

That’s fair, a couple others have agreed with you. That said, I don’t think you’d be singing the same tune if you did have the majority. Either way, do you have anything better to use?

If I did have the majority behind me, on a thread in the PvP forum? Yeah, that would probably have a bit more weight behind it, but lacking that majority where it wasn’t expected in the first place, who cares?

That’s a good question. Who cares, Ohoni?

Ohoni.6057:

If the people at Anet and NCSoft thought they could do better with that, they would have done it.

You mean like with the first time they overhauled how traits work, or the second? They change their mind. Again, nobody disagrees with you that they felt they were doing the right thing when they made their decisions, so I don’t see why you keep arguing that point. All I’m saying is that they can, and it is my belief that they should change their minds in this case.

So we’re back to asserting previous premises and not even quoting half my point.

Ohoni.6057:

So you’re arguing that the Ascension wings are ‘preposterously different’ compared to LS S1 because a group of people probably think that a collection of varying skins and items are worth less than a particular other skin. Even for you that makes no sense.

“and yet it moves.”

And yet it doesn’t answer anything.

Ohoni.6057:

So just ignore all the people that disagree with you and make sure to pander to your particular wants because it’s you.

No.

Then could you explain what this means?

Ohoni.6057:

So nobody would care except those who would care, and your answer to them is lol because you don’t actually have an answer. Got it.

You can’t please everyone.

So this time we hit strawman, double standard, repeating of previous assertions, and maybe half-deflection. 3.5 out of 6

Ohoni.6057:

The problem with having an alternative way is people might think you earned it that way and not with your PvP skill.

And the problem with that would be. . . nothing. Nothing at all. Nobody would care. And those who would care, lol.

And only reason? I think you’re getting motivation confused with reward. You PvP because you want to outskill another team and win and PvP rewards are a byproduct of that activity.

Nope, couldn’t care less about any of that. I just want to get in and out as fast as I can. I play my hardest because I need wins to count for some of the meta achievements, and because it’d be disrespectful to my fellow players not to, but if you didn’t need to win matches to clear the meta I’d be perfectly happy joining an “AFK team” where all of us AFK through the match and get it over with ASAP so I can get back to actually playing the game.

It’s ALL about the wings, for me, and for a lot of players. If you think that’s a toxic attitude to take, I totally agree with you, but we aren’t the cause of it.

PvP is all about using teamwork and skill(mastery of the mechanics and knowledge of other people’s classes) to pull off a win, if you’re good at that then you deserve the prestige rewards. Rewards symbolize progress, if you could buy the wings with 200 gems I don’t think you’d want them since they’d be accessible to everyone with no effort.

I think a colorswapped version for PvE would be good though, but keep the PvP wings uniquely won in PvP only.

To claim that there is a large population that would care about having couches be denied to them is reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true statement. To claim that a significant population would care if rocking chairs were denied them is an unreasonable assertion, since there is no real reason to believe that this is the case.
You can’t assert one thing makes sense and another doesn’t, give no evidence, and expect it to be accepted.

And yet your own example proves you wrong. “Couches” is a more reasonable assertion than “rocking chairs.”

PvP is all about using teamwork and skill(mastery of the mechanics and knowledge of other people’s classes) to pull off a win, if you’re good at that then you deserve the prestige rewards.

And that may be why you play it, and it may be why others play it. I only play it for the wings, because PvP is the only method they’ve given me to acquire those wings. So long as it doesn’t get in the way of me acquiring those wings, I couldn’t give half a kitten about any of that other stuff.

Rewards symbolize progress, if you could buy the wings with 200 gems I don’t think you’d want them since they’d be accessible to everyone with no effort.

Care to test that theory?

I think a colorswapped version for PvE would be good though, but keep the PvP wings uniquely won in PvP only.

A “color swapped” version might be sufficient, depending on if the new color looked good relative to the original. Ideally though they’d just make it dyable, the default wings are.

Ohoni.6057:

To claim that there is a large population that would care about having couches be denied to them is reasonable, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true statement. To claim that a significant population would care if rocking chairs were denied them is an unreasonable assertion, since there is no real reason to believe that this is the case.
You can’t assert one thing makes sense and another doesn’t, give no evidence, and expect it to be accepted.

And yet your own example proves you wrong. “Couches” is a more reasonable assertion than “rocking chairs.”

I’m honestly not even sure what to say. The whole POINT is that both are equally nonsensical in that there’s nothing behind either. The idea that ‘couches’ is a more reasonable assertion than ‘rocking chairs’ is utterly unsupported. I’m pointing out that you’re just asserting that one is more correct, and your answer is to…assert that one is more correct.

I said you can’t assert one thing makes more sense, give no evidence, and expect it to be accepted. Your response was…to assert that one thing makes more sense, give no evidence, and act as if that’s an argument.

Ohoni.6057:

Rewards symbolize progress, if you could buy the wings with 200 gems I don’t think you’d want them since they’d be accessible to everyone with no effort.

Care to test that theory?

Agemnon, you missed the point. Ohoni wants everything to be accessible to everyone with little effort.

Just played a few games won 1 lost 1, the experience in these games is making me quit for the day already.

First game very close game on Foefire we won 567 to 489. Playing bunker ele so I had a somewhat low score but I helped my team immensely. Lose a pip.

Second game up against a full premade with a partial premade, lose by a similar score. Lose a pip as well.

Don’t know what I need to do to advance in this league system. MMR trying to keep me at a 50/50 win rate…and then the pip system bending me over and going in dry.

Taking time out to let everyone know they’re doing a great job here – keep up the useful comments!

I’m honestly not even sure what to say. The whole POINT is that both are equally nonsensical in that there’s nothing behind either.

And if that’s the point you’re trying to make, then you’re using poor examples. You say "To claim that there is a large population that would care about having couches be denied to them is reasonable, " and then assert that you could substitute “rocking chairs” and the statement would be equally reasonable. That isn’t true. I would guess that almost 100% of households have at least one sofa, probably more sofas than households overall. Rocking chairs, on the other hand, are a more niche product, probably well less than 75% of the households that own a couch own a rocking chair, perhaps even as low as 10%.

If you attempted to deny people access to sofas, there would, as a fact, be far more opposition than if you tried to deny them access to rocking chairs. This is why you can’t just use your “logical framework” excuse, it is only as valid as the specific variables at play.

Ohoni.6057:

I’m honestly not even sure what to say. The whole POINT is that both are equally nonsensical in that there’s nothing behind either.

And if that’s the point you’re trying to make, then you’re using poor examples. You say "To claim that there is a large population that would care about having couches be denied to them is reasonable, " and then assert that you could substitute “rocking chairs” and the statement would be equally reasonable. That isn’t true. I would guess that almost 100% of households have at least one sofa, probably more sofas than households overall. Rocking chairs, on the other hand, are a more niche product, probably well less than 75% of the households that own a couch own a rocking chair, perhaps even as low as 10%.

If you attempted to deny people access to sofas, there would, as a fact, be far more opposition than if you tried to deny them access to rocking chairs. This is why you can’t just use your “logical framework” excuse, it is only as valid as the specific variables at play.

You’re looking at this sofa/rocking chair question from the wrong angle. It’s far more reasonable to assert that rocking chairs should be readily available compared to sofas because rocking chairs have a much shorter production cycle and are much cheaper. Rocking chairs are primarily composed of a single material, wood, while sofas go through several cycles, including woodworking and upholstery.

Of course, this depends on the definition of ‘rocking chair’. You could hypothetically assert that the common office chair is also a rocking chair, as they tend to be capable of rocking forwards and backwards. You could almost consider the office chair to be a natural evolution of the rocking chair, as it is not only capable of rocking, but also of spinning and for wheeled variants, locomotion.

In this case, there are many, many more rocking chairs than there are sofas because the industrial and commercial demand for rocking chairs would far outstrip the almost purely commercial demand for sofas.

Secondarily, if we are to use the office chair interpretation of rocking chair, we must take into consideration business interests. Most modern states around the world pay extra attention towards business and corporate interests rather than consumer interests, and they would be very unhappy if their office chairs were removed from them unduly.