Guide to the word "Necessary"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I rest my case. Well played Enant. Well played...

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I read your post before typing anything of my own.

I had this exact argument with him in a 'Stamina is necessary' thread about a year ago, I've had this exact argument with a few others since then. I now have a post to refer them to rather than waste my time typing that all out again. Plus I was waiting for my MP3 player to recharge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who answers a question about whether such-and-such a power is necessary, as though they were answering the question "Is it theoretically possible to build a character without this power," is a Troll.
Anyone who answers the question as though they were answering "Does anyone out there have fun in the game without such-and-such a power," is a Troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Curious lables you so dismissively throw out without any form of actual backing. You build your pont on assumption and supposition, yet you feel the need to accuse people of being trolls?

Redefiniton of reality and attributing intent and context to statements that often have neither is the easiest thing in the world, but it just never leads to anything good. You, yourself, seem to be talking in absolutes, as well, which is also quite striking. You define what people mean, what they are asking, what they want to know, what they do not want to no and so forth. Well, you can't know that. Not only can you not know it, not everyone acts the same way.

The simple fact of the matter is that from my own experience, many people start with the assumption that a power is, quite literally, necessary. They may ask if it is, or they may state that it is. When you then go on to explain that it is far from, again used literally, necessery, and that oftentimes it's not even all that good, you can almost feel their heads exploding over the internet.

I agree that answers that carry no information rarely serve much value. However, how much value they do serve depends on the question asked and the context in which it is being asked. You started out so well noting those, and then you seem to have completely abandoned them further down.

It is a fact that some people who ask if a power is necessery, actually want to know if the build they have in mind could function about as well without it. It is also a fact that some people ask if a power is necessary, simply because they hate the power and want to take another in its place if its possible to function without it.

I've asked the latter many times, and off the top of my head I can remember a post "Is it possible to skip Shadow Maul?" in the Scrapper forums. Sometimes when people ask if powers are necessary, they are, in fact, asking if said powers are necessary. Not if they're good enough, not how they can have more fun, not if their build would be good without them. If they are outright necessary.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as it were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to give this a shot, and see if there isn't already a word or phrase without a contradictory meaning which could be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

For this to be relevant it really has to be you tryng to get *everyone* to change how they communciate. That is an audacious thing to attempt. And doomed.

My guide, on the other hand, points out that a small (but vocal) minority of people are operating contrary to standard communciation habits, (for the same reasons some kids like to make farting noises during moments-of-silence) and that nobody's fooled.

My guide: practical.

Yours: A Perpetual Revolution!

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a simple point, if you need to write an FAQ to explain what you mean when you say a word, odds are you're using the word wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't; it's not really a guide to the word (behold: irony), it's a guide to context (on this particular topic).

Moreover, I don't ever ask "what's necessary."

Nor do I nor most people have trouble understanding what's being asked when people *do* put it this way.

[ QUOTE ]
I have the language you're using on my side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Norms of communication are on my side. What you have on your side is the piquant game of "let's ignore context."


[ QUOTE ]
Words have meanings, and you can't expect people to understand what you meant when you didn't actually say what you meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Words have meaning and context. It's commonplace for people to get the right meaning despite some misused words thanks to context, so yeah, actually, you can expect as much, from everyone who isn't a troll. OTOH, get the context wrong-- and that's what the trolls this guide addresses are trying to obfuscate-- and you can mess up communication at least as easily.

[ QUOTE ]
The person who said this was an invalid comparison was completey correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. If it weren't a valid comparison, you, or they, could and would have been able to find fault with it as it applies here. You haven't. Snipes are not, at all, subjective, they're every bit as objective as the shape of the earth. Snipes are an objective measureable fact of the game, the fun and effectiveness of which, for general purposes, are just as suitable for discussion and scrutiny as the question whether the earth is flat.

No reasonable person would ever discuss "what idiosyncratic traumas from my childhood snipes alleviate." Which is a major point of my criticism of the class of trolls this guide addresses.

They're not subjective, no matter how popular it has become to declare everything subjective as a way of copping out on giving good advice for fear (or, annoyance) of being trolled.

[ QUOTE ]
Curious lables you so dismissively throw out without any form of actual backing. You build your pont on assumption and supposition, yet you feel the need to accuse people of being trolls?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you meant to say was:

1) I didn't back up what I said.
2) It's mean to call people trolls!

So:

1) I did.
2) Trolling is meaner than most things I do.


[ QUOTE ]
Redefiniton of reality and attributing intent and context to statements that often have neither is the easiest thing in the world, but it just never leads to anything good. You, yourself, seem to be talking in absolutes, as well, which is also quite striking. You define what people mean, what they are asking, what they want to know, what they do not want to no and so forth. Well, you can't know that. Not only can you not know it, not everyone acts the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're cutting a great example of "communication is impossible!"

For obvious reasons, that's scarcely ever a very useful position to take.


[ QUOTE ]
I agree that answers that carry no information rarely serve much value. However, how much value they do serve depends on the question asked and the context in which it is being asked. You started out so well noting those, and then you seem to have completely abandoned them further down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't. I carry on with the assumption that everyone agrees, when communicating, to say: 1) the relevant, 2) Not too much, 3) not too little.

That's an understood standard that any linguist can tell you about, without which communication is flat out impossible, and with which the rest of my position on why people answering questions about what's necessary in a build with babble about their private aesthetic idiosyncracies or facts known to everyone who's played to level 3 already know, are trolls, follows.


[ QUOTE ]
It is a fact that some people who ask if a power is necessery, actually want to know if the build they have in mind could function about as well without it. It is also a fact that some people ask if a power is necessary, simply because they hate the power and want to take another in its place if its possible to function without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are both in the scope of "necessary" as it's being used when that question is asked.

[ QUOTE ]
I think what you meant to say was:

1) I didn't back up what I said.
2) It's mean to call people trolls!
So:
1) I did.
2) Trolling is meaner than most things I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. You backed it up with assumptions and supposition.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't mean to be a jerk, I just don't agree.

[ QUOTE ]
You're cutting a great example of "communication is impossible!"
For obvious reasons, that's scarcely ever a very useful position to take.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the contrary, communication is possible witin the right context. You just seem to ignore half the possible context as impossible and immaterial. And I cannot agree with that.

[ QUOTE ]
Those are both in the scope of "necessary" as it's being used when that question is asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, again, you only acknowlege the former as acceptable.

See, I'm not arguing that what you proclaim is wrong is right. As I said, posts of non-information are quite simply useless, and often end up serving as a precedent for further muddying the waters.

But you go by an assumption that everyone agrees with you, and by exclusion you end up proclaiming that everyone who does not is a troll. Examine that however you will, the fact remains that you make a statement and then demonize disagreement with that statement by liberally throwing around loaded lables. I'm not sure if this is intentional, but that is the net result.

You keep talking on and on about context, yet you only acknowlege the context that supports your claim. Well, ignoring part of the possible context is ignoring context allthesame. If someone asks if a power is necessery and means just that - if he can operate without this power in the most absolute sense - would your guide still apply? Because I believe it would not.

And I didn't see any allowence in your guide for what is by no means a rare occurance. You explore the problem extremely one-sidedly. Quite literally, you only explore one side of the problem. Because equally as often I've seen people ask, and in fact askek, myself, weather a power is necessary, and the answeres have been long debates about numbers and tactics and suggestions when all the question was asking was if play without a certain power is possible.

Would it not stand to reason, then, that people actually pay attention to the context itself, rather than going off guides that try tell them what the context is supposed to be? I'd be campaigning for better understanding right there with you, but I do not believe what you have suggested facilitates understanding. You seem to be promoting even more preconceptions, though be they opposite the popular ones, rather than teaching true inderstanding.

I quite simply feel you're not being objective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The person who said this was an invalid comparison was completey correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. If it weren't a valid comparison, you, or they, could and would have been able to find fault with it as it applies here. You haven't. Snipes are not, at all, subjective, they're every bit as objective as the shape of the earth. Snipes are an objective measureable fact of the game, the fun and effectiveness of which, for general purposes, are just as suitable for discussion and scrutiny as the question whether the earth is flat.

No reasonable person would ever discuss "what idiosyncratic traumas from my childhood snipes alleviate." Which is a major point of my criticism of the class of trolls this guide addresses.

They're not subjective, no matter how popular it has become to declare everything subjective as a way of copping out on giving good advice for fear (or, annoyance) of being trolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snipes are subjectively effective because they are subject to the ability of the player to use them correctly, the situation in which they are being used, the slotting they have, and so on and so forth. Like I said to begin with, it is not given that because you have a snipe in your power selection that snipe will be effective. Snipe's effectiveness is subject to other factors. The shape of the Earth is not. A snipe can be ineffective. Earth's always round.



As for your context argument; it's hogwash. You're just covering up for people who have difficulty with their vocabulary. If you're using the word "necessary" you should know what it means. If you're using the wrong words to ask a question, then don't be surprised when you get the wrong answer.

Editted to add: And I find it childish and offensive that you refer to me as a troll, simply because I prefer to answer the question that was asked.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The person who said this was an invalid comparison was completey correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. If it weren't a valid comparison, you, or they, could and would have been able to find fault with it as it applies here. You haven't. Snipes are not, at all, subjective, they're every bit as objective as the shape of the earth. Snipes are an objective measureable fact of the game, the fun and effectiveness of which, for general purposes, are just as suitable for discussion and scrutiny as the question whether the earth is flat.

No reasonable person would ever discuss "what idiosyncratic traumas from my childhood snipes alleviate." Which is a major point of my criticism of the class of trolls this guide addresses.

They're not subjective, no matter how popular it has become to declare everything subjective as a way of copping out on giving good advice for fear (or, annoyance) of being trolled.

[/ QUOTE ]


Snipes are, contrary to your inaccurate conjecture, not completely an objective subject.

The base accuracy of a snipe is objective. It is the same for every player.
The base damage of a snipe is objective. It is the same for every player.

Even if being used in a way that most players would call "improper", or by a player with no skills in group/solo combat, or against mobs that are +/- 20 levels of the character, the base accuracy and base damage of a snipe remain unchanged. Also, a character builder tool could list the base accuracy as a number other than what it actually is, and that would not actually change the base accuracy. Therefor, that particular character builder would be incorrect. The base accuracy of the snipe would remain what it is, however, an it would therefor be objective.

Let's say, for instance, that a completely unskilled player, ie an "f'n noob", were to run headlong at an Arch-Villain and use his/her snipe at point blank range (melee range), without the use of any insprirations, without a Build Up or an Aim, without any buffs, etc. In this instance, many players would consider this to be an "incorrect" use of the snipe power, and yet, the base accuracy and base damage of the snipe itself would remain unaltered. Objective.

Effective, however, is more subjective. Would the situation above be an effective use of the snipe power? I say no, so might others. Does that mean the power itself is not effective? Not necessarily. The immediate arguement might be that it is not effective in that context, but then... does the effectiveness of the power itself change in this situation? That depends. What defines the powers effectiveness? Is it how much potential damage it is doing to the targetted mob? If that's the case, then no, the effectiveness is NOT being altered by this use. Is the effectiveness of the power determined by its potential risk to the caster, in terms of death? Then the answer would be yes, the effectiveness is being severly reduced in this case, since the caster is putting him/herself in greater danger of dying. Perhaps the effectiveness of the power is measured in terms of overall contribution to the completion of the mission. What if, by doing this, it allows for a couple of other teammates to stack some holds on the AV, thereby allowing a safer combat session for all others on the team. Similar to a sacrifice run in baseball. The sniper sacrificed his/her own safety with the goal of allowing others time to act without risking death themselves. This then contributes to the greater good of the team, and could easily be called "effective" depending on that team's strategies and abilities.

And lastly, fun is in no way the same thing as effectiveness. That is the key point where your arguement COMPLETELY falls apart. Numerous times you equate effectiveness and fun being the same thing, and they most certainly are not.

Case in point. Is going on a Hamidon raid, brawling once, then sitting on a rock for the duration of the raid, effective? Certainly is. Is it fun? I'll let you (the reader) decide for yourself, but I say a resounding "NO". Is using Stealth or Invisibility to sneak past mobs, grab the clickies, and complete the mission without fighting anything effective? Depends. Effective at completing the mission, yes. Effective at gaining the most xp from the mission as possible, no. Is it, conversely, fun? Again, not in my opinion. But then, to someone playing a Ninja based character, it could very well be. Their "fun" might be derived from their ability to sneak past unsuspecting mobs and "outsmart" them.

The base accuracy of a snipe is objective. It is the same for every player.
The base damage of a snipe is objective. It is the same for every player.
The effectiveness of a snipe is subjective. It varies from player to player and from use to use.
The measure of fun of a snipe is subjective. It varies from player to player.

No, sir. Effective most assuredly does not equate to fun in all cases, and neither are objective matters. Any arguement that uses these faulty assumptions as a basis of validility, especially one which attempts to educate people on the supposed proper meaning and usage of a word, is without merit. Until you learn the actual (ie, objective) differences between fun and effectiveness, as well as between objective and subjective, I would suggest not preaching your own skewed views to the community as though they are infallible gospel.

Sorry for the interjection, but I found it "necessary".

[ QUOTE ]
Effective, however, is more subjective. Would the situation above be an effective use of the snipe power? I say no, so might others. Does that mean the power itself is not effective? Not necessarily. The immediate arguement might be that it is not effective in that context, but then... does the effectiveness of the power itself change in this situation? That depends. What defines the powers effectiveness? Is it how much potential damage it is doing to the targetted mob? If that's the case, then no, the effectiveness is NOT being altered by this use. Is the effectiveness of the power determined by its potential risk to the caster, in terms of death? Then the answer would be yes, the effectiveness is being severly reduced in this case, since the caster is putting him/herself in greater danger of dying. Perhaps the effectiveness of the power is measured in terms of overall contribution to the completion of the mission. What if, by doing this, it allows for a couple of other teammates to stack some holds on the AV, thereby allowing a safer combat session for all others on the team. Similar to a sacrifice run in baseball. The sniper sacrificed his/her own safety with the goal of allowing others time to act without risking death themselves. This then contributes to the greater good of the team, and could easily be called "effective" depending on that team's strategies and abilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just made my point. Saying "snipes are effective" by itself is not the same as saying "the Earth is round" because whether the snipe is effective or not depends upon all those things you mentioned. Whether the Earth is round or not depends on nothing. It is.

As for fun vs. effectiveness, you're absolutely right. They are not at all the same thing and may be completely unrelated. I never mentioned the word 'fun' in any of my posts.

Editted to add: And now upon paying closer attention I see that you were in fact supporting my argument, not contradicting me... which explains why I kept saying "but that's my point!" when I was reading your post. Heh. Move along. Nothing to see here...

[ QUOTE ]
Editted to add: And now upon paying closer attention I see that you were in fact supporting my argument, not contradicting me... which explains why I kept saying "but that's my point!" when I was reading your post. Heh. Move along. Nothing to see here...

[/ QUOTE ]


Heh. No worries. Yes, I was in fact supporting your arguement, and rebutting Enantiodromos. Perhaps I should have specifically mentioned this, but I thought that seeing that my post was a reply to him, and not you, that this would have been apparent.

My assumption was apparently subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that seeing that my post was a reply to him, and not you, that this would have been apparent.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, normally it would have. Today must be Monday or something.

If everyone adhered to this guide, it could have most people playing by the same rules, with the same builds, left with the same issues and like many people, never thinking outside of the box that is, what some people are stuck in. For the completely stupid it would of most likely of helped them to get on in game better than they would of and so it is from my own perspective..a good guide!