The new Viper changes are great

[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.

[W00by]

I didn't insinuate you were wrong to like it. I've said many times in many of my posts that anyone who feels how they feel about anything -- positionals, job complexity, fight design -- is entitled to how they feel.

But my stance is that current Viper is OBJECTIVELY poorly designed in comparison to the previous Viper. You can find it fun, but you're saying they're good changes with no evidence of them being good changes other than "I like them" which is awful evidence. I mention the logs to demonstrate that whether or not you like it is feeling based, not based on anything objective or substantial because you're unskilled and not even playing the job in the content where job design matters, and that you calling for EVEN MORE ACCESSIBILITY is just ridiculous. I have to show that you're being ridiculous somehow, because I can't argue against your feelings, now, can I?

If you want to argue against my objective takes on why current Viper is bad, you're free to do so. They're all in my profile. But you know what? I admit to it being a little bit of spite. Players like you love to dance on the grave of complexity and call for it to get even worse because you hate "toxic" players like me, just look at how your first post is worded. Why would you have even made this thread instead of responding to one of the current megathreads -- like the one I made -- if you weren't having a little jab at people who are upset? And players like you will read the more objective posts I DO make (I've made plenty) and call me a toxic elitist because of that, or say I have no ground to stand on. There's no point talking to you. You'll call me toxic or dismiss what it is I have to say because, historically, you always get what you want. Every job gets to be made for you And players like me are tired of it and like taking the piss out of people like you.

Anyway, I've had a decent time making you look silly, so I'm not replying to this thread anymore. Should've taken my own advice and ignored you outright, but I have to admit it was a little fun.

Everything you said was proven untrue in my first post. You can't prove something via lack of evidence. Like that's just not how it works.

That said, I do have proof through your own methods. you just can't cherrypick the bad while ignoring the good.

To the other person: Post it then! The video preferably, that'd be cool to see. Maybe you're super good, who knows. Preferably a Viper vod since that's what these conversations have been about!

(Also, by the logic that you can't prove something via lack of evidence, then I can't prove that Bigfoot isn't real -- I also can't prove that Unicorns don't exist -- I also can't prove that dragons don't exist -- that's a really silly argument, you can definitely make assumptions about something based on a lack of evidence, i.e. there's no evidence you're good = therefore it's possible you aren't good, likely even. but maybe bigfoot is real who knows)

[Eudyptes]

(Also, by the logic that you can't prove something via lack of evidence, then I can't prove that Bigfoot isn't real -- I also can't prove that Unicorns don't exist -- I also can't prove that dragons don't exist -- that's a really silly argument, you can definitely make assumptions about something based on a lack of evidence, i.e. there's no evidence you're good = therefore it's possible you aren't good, likely even. but maybe bigfoot is real who knows)

Other way around on that. You can't prove Bigfoot/unicorns exists with a lack of evidence, just like you can't prove anyone is good or bad with a lack of evidence.

Other than that, I'll run an EX with you or something sometime but I'm not gonna go through the effort to record a video or whatever to prove something to some rando on the internet. That's ridiculous.

[StriderZessei]

You know what does defeat your argument? 1 like.

Oh please. The forums are a salt mine and the only comments that get double digit likes are the ones calling for mass firings at SE for the removal of Kaiten.

[Rychu]

Damn that's a lot of words.... to bad im not reading em.

[Bobby66]

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 mean what is objective about any comment regarding the feel and enjoyment of how a class plays? Outside of raw performance everything else is a subjective metric.

Edit: I do not play the class, but I just don't think someone has to be an expert on the class to make comments regarding their enjoyment or if they find certain changes to be more enjoyable or not.

[W00by]

I mean what is objective about any comment regarding the feel and enjoyment of how a class plays? Outside of raw performance everything else is a subjective metric.

Edit: I do not play the class, but I just don't think someone has to be an expert on the class to make comments regarding their enjoyment or if they find certain changes to be more enjoyable or not.

This is a thoughtful reply! Thank you. I'll break my no-reply rule 'cus this is a good question!

You can't make objective comments about how someone feels, certainly, and as I said in a message just a little bit ago, I wouldn't begrudge anyone for feeling how they feel. But people are conflating whether they like the Viper change with whether or not it's a GOOD Viper change. You can like something that is objectively poorly designed.

Beginner Vipers (in JP specifically) find the new flashing job HUD for the first-stage combos confusing, and hardcore and intermediate Vipers have noticed that the skill ceiling is inarguably lower because there are objectively less things to do with the kit. They took away something without adding anything meaningful back, so in an indisputable sense, there is "less" in the class. It is objectively less "complete" regardless of whether or not you LIKE a "less complete" Viper.

If you like it, more power to you! But the reason I responded to Eudypte's post like this is because, yesterday, they were arguing with me about how Viper is "barely different" and it "doesn't change anything" and that it "plays the same" which are all objectively false statements. To be able to make those claims, you'd have to be an expert in the class who can verifiably say that it does play the same now as it did before. If you weren't good enough to be taking advantage of Noxious Gash, you can't really talk about how it objectively worked, can you? Like, I don't know what Healers do so I couldn't talk about how Astro's new Lightspeed feels because I've never done it.

Anyway, someone looked up their logs and they got salty about it, which is why I was explaining that, after they made false statements, someone looked up their logs and they don't really have any reason to be upset about it. They demonstrated a lack of understanding and people looked up their logs to verify it.

As sad as I am about it, I can't blame anyone for liking it. But I think based on both player feedback and the design dynamic, it's a wore designed version of the class.

[Eudyptes]

Anyway, someone looked up their logs and they got salty about it, which is why I was explaining that, after they made false statements, someone looked up their logs and they don't really have any reason to be upset about it. They demonstrated a lack of understanding and people looked up their logs to verify it.

No one got salty, just called you out for not being smart enough to understand how data works on a fundamental level

[Bobby66]

This is a thoughtful reply! Thank you. I'll break my no-reply rule 'cus this is a good question!

You can't make objective comments about how someone feels, certainly, and as I said in a message just a little bit ago, I wouldn't begrudge anyone for feeling how they feel. But people are conflating whether they like the Viper change with whether or not it's a GOOD Viper change. You can like something that is objectively poorly designed.

Beginner Vipers (in JP specifically) find the new flashing job HUD for the first-stage combos confusing, and hardcore and intermediate Vipers have noticed that the skill ceiling is inarguably lower because there are objectively less things to do with the kit. They took away something without adding anything meaningful back, so in an indisputable sense, there is "less" in the class. It is objectively less "complete" regardless of whether or not you LIKE a "less complete" Viper.

If you like it, more power to you! But the reason I responded to Eudypte's post like this is because, yesterday, they were arguing with me about how Viper is "barely different" and it "doesn't change anything" and that it "plays the same" which are all objectively false statements. To be able to make those claims, you'd have to be an expert in the class who can verifiably say that it does play the same now as it did before. If you weren't good enough to be taking advantage of Noxious Gash, you can't really talk about how it objectively worked, can you? Like, I don't know what Healers do so I couldn't talk about how Astro's new Lightspeed feels because I've never done it.

Anyway, someone looked up their logs and they got salty about it, which is why I was explaining that, after they made false statements, someone looked up their logs and they don't really have any reason to be upset about it. They demonstrated a lack of understanding and people looked up their logs to verify it.

As sad as I am about it, I can't blame anyone for liking it. But I think based on both player feedback and the design dynamic, it's a wore designed version of the class.

The removal of something does not inherently make the class objectively worse. The worse is still based off a subjective feel you have. Take for example I was a fan of the old SMN and I hate the new SMN. I cannot make an objective claim that the class is worse off due to everything that was removed and how simple they made it. I can say it is objectively no longer the same class, but that does not objectively make it a worse class or even less complete. The class is just different.

Hope I was able to explain what I am mean, just because an adjustment was made and something was removed does not mean the class is objectively worse off or less than to everyone. It may be less to you, but not someone else which makes it hard to make an objective claim it is worse off. All comes down to opinion.

[CKNovel]

You can hide behind the Terms of Service all you like, but it doesn't make any of what I've said less true.

Also, for what it's worth, I'd take any non-ToS breaking evidence that you're good too! Perhaps if you can post a video of you playing on YouTube, or link your achievements in game showing you've cleared Ultimate fights (though we still won't know what job you played it on). That evidence is just a lot weaker since no one can prove you didn't buy the clear/what job you did it on/how well you did it, but it's still evidence. But if you don't have any evidence of skill people just won't take you as seriously.

They're out of the line but they're right.

Imagine if someone in a wheelchair said "Shoe durability isn't important, company saving cost by making bad shoes is good!", we should be free to point out they're not the public.
Or that a blind person says "we should close theaters, they're useless".

That's not shaming their disabilities, simply pointing out that they're not the public.
We need to use metrics we have to understand where the feedback comes from.