The new Viper changes are great

[Wolf_Heartnet]

Logs are a good metric of game understanding. It's proof that you cleared something, and understood your job while you did. Other people are logging you, regardless of whether or not you're logging yourself, and it's proof (or a lack thereof) that you know what you're talking about. If you can't demonstrate that you're clearing content where things like Job design and balance matters, people will justifiably take issue with that.

Also, saying that logs from PF don't matter is simply not true. I got a multitude of 99s in Valigarmanda and plenty of oranges in Zoraal Ja playing in party finder with sub-par comps, weird buff timings, people dying and playing poorly, and scuffed kill times. And I wasn't even logging myself for most of those. A player who understands their Job will do well in logs regardless. People shouldn't expect you to be a pink or orange log player for you to know what you're talking about, but if you haven't ever played the job being discussed in hard content, or are performing poorly (greens/greys) while doing so, then your opinion won't carry as much weight. If no logs of you exist for content you've done, then you probably didn't do it very much or someone would've logged you.

At any rate, when the conversation is about Job design, being able to prove you're good at that job is a form of credibility. Saying "the evidence doesn't exist" just means "there's no way to tell if I'm credible or not," which is still a much weaker audience than "I have a credible stance because I have numeric proof that I know what I'm talking about."

That's why people look up your logs. If you're gonna make objective comments about job design, you need to be prepared to have your objective skill analyzed.

I believe that's called an appeal to authority which is a well known logical fallacy as it proves nothing other than you having accomplished something rather than contributing anything of value to a conversation. Theres no critical thinking or evaluation in that. It's just "listen to me cause of my status or achievement". Like when you pointed out that I go around rage baiting in other threads, despite me showing you actual proof that I dont do that, you shifted to my parses and then post this as if to say ur parses justify your logic. It doesn't. You just deflected and couldnt argue based on the actual information provided to you.

[W00by]

I believe that's called an appeal to authority which is a well known logical fallacy as it proves nothing other than you having accomplished something rather than contributing anything of value to a conversation. Theres no critical thinking or evaluation in that. It's just "listen to me cause of my status or achievement". Like when you pointed out that I go around rage baiting in other threads, despite me showing you actual proof that I dont do that, you shifted to my parses and then post this as if to say ur parses justify your logic. It doesn't. You just deflected and couldnt argue based on the actual information provided to you.

The appeal to authority fallacy is when you trust something that someone says STRICTLY because they are an authority even though it's untrue, and then use that trust to argue your point with no other evidence. I.e., if I said "new Viper is bad because X streamer said so!" would be an example of this fallacy. In contrast, myself and other experienced Vipers are providing evidence based arguments. Our own experience is part of that evidence. You clearly don't know anything about the "logical fallacies" you actually cite.

Trying to prove your own expertise based on your own experiences is called "using evidence" and "ethos," which is stuff they teach you in your high school English class.

Sorry you missed those! Must've been too busy progging story or something.

[Wolf_Heartnet]

The appeal to authority fallacy is when you trust something that someone says STRICTLY because they are an authority even though it's untrue. You clearly don't know anything about the "logical fallacies" you actually cite.

Trying to prove your own expertise based on your own experiences is called "using evidence" and "ethos," which is stuff they teach you in your high school English class.

Sorry you missed those! Must've been too busy progging story or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

An argument from authority[a] is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.[1]

The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.[3][4]

It's not evidence. Ur claiming authority on the subject based on your parse. We can't argue back to you because you claim authority on the area. If you werent the authority then that means we don't have to listen to you based on your parse BECAUSE your not an authority. So you ARE claiming authority.

your parse is not reflective of the arguments or conversations thats happening here. You're using parse to say that my opinion on the changes being good is invalid because of my lack of having a leveled character and calling me a rage baiter. When proven wrong, you switched to parse and using that to make you an authority on the argument. You "evidence" is completely irrelevant because it doesnt do anything to disprove what I said. In fact, you have been wrong on several counts on this thread.

Argue with words and logic rather than relying on a parse to dismiss any topic just because you don't like other peoples opinions.

[W00by]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


It's not evidence. Ur claiming authority on the subject based on your parse. We can't argue back to you because you claim authority on the area. If you werent the authority then that means we don't have to listen to you based on your parse BECAUSE your not an authority. So you ARE claiming authority.

your parse is not reflective of the arguments or conversations thats happening here. You're using parse to say that my opinion on the changes being good is invalid because of my lack of having a leveled character and calling me a rage baiter. When proven wrong, you switched to parse and using that to make you an authority on the argument. You "evidence" is completely irrelevant because it doesnt do anything to disprove what I said. In fact, you have been wrong on several counts on this thread.

Argue with words and logic rather than relying on a parse to dismiss any topic just because you don't like other peoples opinions.

But I'm not an "authority" figure, in this case. I'm proving I'm a credible expert. I'm NOT saying "I made Viper so listen to me," I'm proving that I'm knowledgeable on a subject I intend to discuss. By your incorrect interpretation of the fallacy, you're saying that the professional opinions of scientists and doctors mean less than a layman who's talking about the same thing, because doctors and scientists aren't allowed to use their expertise to argue, otherwise "meh, it doesn't mean anything 'cus they're an authority figure!"

I am not using the opinion of an authority figure (notably, an external one) as my only argument. I'm using the opinion of myself, which I prove as credible via my own expertise and have numerical data supporting that expertise. Your interpretation of the fallacy is still wrong. And it was still wrong after you went to Wikipedia and proved yourself wrong?... That's impressive.

[Wolf_Heartnet]

But I'm not an "authority" figure, in this case. I'm proving I'm a credible expert. I'm NOT saying "I made Viper so listen to me," I'm proving that I'm knowledgeable on a subject I intend to discuss. By your incorrect interpretation of the fallacy, you're saying that the professional opinions of scientists and doctors mean less than a layman who's talking about the same thing, because doctors and scientists aren't allowed to use their expertise to argue, otherwise "meh, it doesn't mean anything 'cus they're an authority figure!"

I am not using the opinion of an authority figure. Your interpretation of the fallacy is still wrong. And it was still wrong after you went to Wikipedia and proved yourself wrong?... That's impressive.

Incorrect. The difference is that your not talking based on actual constructive information and feedback or analysis. A Doctor doesnt have to use his job title in order to prove his point. A doctor can have a conversation with a layman and explain why a medicine may be good or bad for you and the layman can read studies and educate himself and retort with the doctors with his own knowledge. The doctors title and the laymans background has nothing to do with the actual exchange of information based on the topic. All they have to do is argue facts. Take the pandemic that happened, right? It was filled with false information and many doctors (including fauci) was wrong. Despite alot of people arguing early on that it wouldnt work and it was many laymen that pointed this out.

What you're doing is saying "Im a doctor. Shut up. You're not a doctor. You're wrong. Shut up"

It seems like you're having alot of trouble understanding the fallacy or just willfully ignorant. I believe its the ladder.

[W00by]

ladder.

Ignore the quote. It's just kind of funny. (And Fauci comment? Are we getting political on here? That's epic.)

At any rate, you're still super off here. I don't think my logs make me an authority over you -- I don't think I'm your boss, I think you're bad at the game, and that the opinions of players that don't understand the game fundamentally can't offer valuable design insights because they don't know what they're talking about. I'm not telling you "shut up I have good logs." I'm telling you that you DON'T have good logs, which demonstrates a LACK OF EXPERTISE when it comes to the DESIGN of Viper, which is important in a conversation about the DESIGN of Viper. You can cling to the logical fallacy all you want, but that doesn't make it any less true. If I wanted to push up my glasses and get real rhetorical, I'd say you're attacking the strawman argument of this "appeal to authority" thing rather than debunking the actual claims I'm making, but that'd be really cringe so I won't do that.

I haven't been talking about whether or not the Viper changes are good. if you want to see my opinion on the Viper conversation, you should read my post history! I've made lots of evidence and design based arguments against the changes, and my logs are evidence that I know what I'm talking about on that particular subject.

I just didn't post them here, because any time anyone disagrees with you, you call them a toxic elitist. (It's kinda cringe.)

[Wolf_Heartnet]

Ignore the quote. It's just kind of funny. (And Fauci comment? Are we getting political on here? That's epic.)

At any rate, you're still super off here. I don't think my logs make me an authority over you -- I don't think I'm your boss, I think you're bad at the game, and that the opinions of players that don't understand the game fundamentally can't offer valuable design insights because they don't know what they're talking about. I'm not telling you "shut up I have good logs." I'm telling you that you DON'T have good logs, which demonstrates a LACK OF EXPERTISE when it comes to the DESIGN of Viper, which is important in a conversation about the DESIGN of Viper. You can cling to the logical fallacy all you want, but that doesn't make it any less true. If I wanted to push up my glasses and get real rhetorical, I'd say you're attacking the strawman argument of this "appeal to authority" thing rather than debunking the actual claims I'm making, but that'd be really cringe so I won't do that.

I haven't been talking about whether or not the Viper changes are good. if you want to see my opinion on the Viper conversation, you should read my post history! I've made lots of evidence and design based arguments against the changes, and my logs are evidence that I know what I'm talking about in those particular subject.

I just didn't post them here, because any time anyone disagrees with you, you call them a toxic elitist. (It's kinda cringe.)

Logs don't have anything to do with what this thread is about though. This thread was me expressing my opinion that the changes are great and my appreciation for square. My appreciation of the current Viper is just that. An opinion and many people have different likes and dislikes. Just because u like old Viper and I like new Viper doesnt mean im wrong. It just means we both have different likes. Your logs does nothing to prove that im wrong in liking current Viper and that is why I keep telling you that the logs are not relevant to the topic.

My good logs, my lack of logs and your logs or lack of logs is irrelevant. If you have ANYTHING to constructive then say it but right now u keep falling back onto logs when it has nothing to do with the topic. You came in being toxic from the start and didnt argue based on the topic but on my lack of having a viper leveled and claim i was rage baiting. So I proved you wrong and you insisted on going down the parse route despite it not contributing at all to the topic. Theres a reason why despite people clearing Ultimates that we have the meme of "Legend By The Way" or the fact that mentor crowns are looked down upon as low skill despite having leveled a nice spread of classes. You've made no arguments rather than "look at my parse" and your other arguments got shot down.

And the only time I talk about toxicism and such is generally when people like you become toxic. You could have come here and politely state your case but what did you do? You immediately tried to attack me and shut me down and misrepresent me in this thread and call me a rage baiter. That is toxic. 100%. You can't deny that. You can say its cringe but I think its more cringe to not call out someone with a poor attitude.

I love the current Viper. I find it fun. Disagree all you want but if your answer is just "Look at my parses bro!" Then there is no substance in your argument and we can just agree to disagree.