The new Viper changes are great

[Eudyptes]

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.

They aren't right though, simply because they have incomplete data. You can't judge a person's ability based on out of context, fragmented information. Full stop. I don't even know how this is even an argument.

Furthermore, yesterday someone like-minded to them tried to use this same argument against me using a grey parse on a job I never played while ignoring my reaper had orange parses. So they aren't even using it "objectively" like they claim.

[NobleWinter]

I love the Viper changes. It's way better now than before objectively. If you haven't cleared any content with it you wouldn't be able to tell tho. This is my main and only account. I have kellogs to back up my claims. I'm a pro player.

[CKNovel]

They aren't right though, simply because they have incomplete data. You can't judge a person's ability based on out of context, fragmented information. Full stop. I don't even know how this is even an argument.

Furthermore, yesterday someone like-minded to them tried to use this same argument against me using a grey parse on a job I never played while ignoring my reaper had orange parses. So they aren't even using it "objectively" like they claim.

There's incomplete data and data manipulation, those are two different things.
Even if the data is incomplete, the person is completely free to provide its own data.

That's basic 101 burden of proof. You make a claim, you back it up with a proof. You want to make a counter-claim, you bring your own proof.

[ovIm]

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.

Here is the thing though - the one thing we interact with in a video game is gameplay mechanics. The upkeep of Vipers Noxious Gnash debuff was part of the core of what made the Viper Gameplay work.

Both Dreadwinder and the filler combo interacted with that debuff, and that debuff inherently linked Dreadwinder and the filler combo on a fundamental level. With that now broken up, Dreadwinder is no longer a part of the core gameplay, but a parasitical extra that you press when its ready, with no real interaction with other parts of the kid aside from keeping up buffs that stay there during regular rotation anyhow.

Sure, people are free to subjectively enjoy one over the other, that is fair. But objectively, the class has lost things, and thus was reduced in gameplay (the main thing we interact with in the game), meaning it is now "lesser", or "worse."

[W00by]

They aren't right though, simply because they have incomplete data. You can't judge a person's ability based on out of context, fragmented information. Full stop. I don't even know how this is even an argument.

Furthermore, yesterday someone like-minded to them tried to use this same argument against me using a grey parse on a job I never played while ignoring my reaper had orange parses. So they aren't even using it "objectively" like they claim.

This gives mad "my girlfriend goes to another school. You wouldn't know her though. And you don't go to that school so you can't prove she doesn't exist" energy.

By a purely scientific definition, yes, I cannot PROVE you are bad if your logs aren't public (even though the ones that are don't look great). But I can make an educated guess -- a "hypothesis," if we're being scientific -- about the absence of something (skill in this case) when there's an absence of evidence, and you getting kinda salty about it makes me feel even more assured in that conclusion. Post the vid!!!

There's incomplete data and data manipulation, those are two different things.
Even if the data is incomplete, the person is completely free to provide its own data.

That's basic 101 burden of proof. You make a claim, you back it up with a proof. You want to make a counter-claim, you bring your own proof.

Right? It's so obvious. I could say "I'm definitely a doctor so you should trust my medical opinion. But I won't show you my doctorate. You can definitely trust that it exists though. I went 'try-hard' in Med School."

(i really should stop but they make it easy)

[Morr_Ar]

In order to assess whether the VPR changes are good or bad for the job, it has to be understood what the changes mean for how players play the job.

At a surface level, the change appears to be small. Instead of using Dread Fangs to refresh the NG debuff, we alternate Steel and Dread (now rebranded Reaving) as one buffs the damage of the other. If you were to compare a rotation guide or diagram of the two versions of VPR, you might conclude that the change is minimal in term of the buttons being pushed.

But to conclude one’s analysis there is to take a reductive view of job or game design. What is more important to consider is whether or not the changes lead to players being able to make more or less meaningful decisions in their play.

I would argue that removing NG removes a lot of the moment to moment decision making on VPR, because the job now strictly mandates when to use the Reaving combo starter, as opposed to players have the scope to optimise around minimising Dread Fangs in order to maximise potency output.

When playing the prior version of VPR, players could make a judgment on whether they needed to use Dread Fangs by comparing the remaining debuff timer with the cool-down on Dreadwinder. When coming up to a double Reawaken window on even minutes, the player had to ensure that they had at least around 25 seconds on the debuff to ensure they could fit both Reawakens in under the debuff and press either Dread Fangs or Dreadwinder following the last Ouroboros.

Alternatively if they anticipated having to disengage for a mechanic, and didn’t want to risk losing the 10% potency on Uncoiled Fury, they could reapply the debuff earlier. While a small decision, made multiple times over the course of an encounter meant that VPR asked players to make decisions regularly regarding their debuff timer.

Players who were attentive and could make appropriate judgments to optimise the debuff timer were rewarded for doing so with additional potency and the satisfaction of uptime without overcapping the debuff. Nothing incredibly complex, but still a meaningful layer of challenge and decision making in Normal Raids and higher content. Every action you took as VPR was taken in the context of monitoring your debuff timer which added an additional layer of forward planning to the job.

This layer of decision making no longer exists on VPR. The personal buff timers are more generous than NG was and they are refreshed more frequently. Double Reawaken no longer requires any forward planning, disengaging no longer prompts any meaningful decision making. A layer of optimisation the job permitted is now absent.

For that reason I am not convinced by claims that the change is either ‘meaningless’ to how the job plays, or a net positive.

[jerome15]

Yes, let’s remove stuff from jobs to make them more accessible so that players that liked the job before might potentially not like the job anymore, spectacular decision making yet again on SE’s part that they’ve been doing for a decade now. I keep seeing stuff like this and keep questioning why I came back. This is the first expansion since heavensward that I haven’t seen my main job get gutted, but now I’m watching them gut every other class instead.

[Eudyptes]

This gives mad "my girlfriend goes to another school. You wouldn't know her though. And you don't go to that school so you can't prove she doesn't exist" energy.

By a purely scientific definition, yes, I cannot PROVE you are bad if your logs aren't public (even though the ones that are don't look great). But I can make an educated guess -- a "hypothesis," if we're being scientific -- about the absence of something (skill in this case) when there's an absence of evidence, and you getting kinda salty about it makes me feel even more assured in that conclusion. Post the vid!!!



Right? It's so obvious. I could say "I'm definitely a doctor so you should trust my medical opinion. But I won't show you my doctorate. You can definitely trust that it exists though. I went 'try-hard' in Med School."

(i really should stop but they make it easy)

You guys are unironically the most smooth brain people on this forum. First of all, by your own metric I've passed your test. So there shouldn't even be a debate about that. Second, and I cannot be more clear about this YOU CANNOT USE INCOMPLETE DATA WITHOUT CONTEXT AS PROOF OF SKILL. This is literally the "I've dipped a cup into the ocean. There are no fish in the cup, so I've concluded there are no fish in the ocean" scenario.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are, my guy.

[W00by]

You guys are unironically the most smooth brain people on this forum. First of all, by your own metric I've passed your test. So there shouldn't even be a debate about that. Second, and I cannot be more clear about this YOU CANNOT USE INCOMPLETE DATA WITHOUT CONTEXT AS PROOF OF SKILL. This is literally the "I've dipped a cup into the ocean. There are no fish in the cup, so I've concluded there are no fish in the ocean" scenario.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are, my guy.

Have you ever heard of what it means for a study to be "peer-reviewed?" It means a crowd of your peers takes a look at your study and decides whether or not they think it's founded.

In this case, you have published your study without publishing your sources. Your peers are going to read your study and go "where are the sources?"

If you say "I won't let you see them" or "They don't exist," your argument is groundless.

We are your peers in this case. We looked at your sources and found them lacking. You don't get to tell us whether the data that isn't there would be valid or helpful because it isn't there. We drew a conclusion based on an absence of evidence.

And there's nothing you can do to stop it. Not even bolding or italicizing your text. (Maybe try underlining it next time?)

I'd love to meet your girlfriend, by the way. Shame she goes to another school.

[Eudyptes]

Have you ever heard of what it means for a study to be "peer-reviewed?" It means a crowd of your peers takes a look at your study and decides whether or not they think it's founded.

In this case, you have published your study (your opinion) without publishing your sources. Your peers are going to read your study (your opinion) and go "where are the sources?"

If you say "I won't let you see them" or "They don't exist," your argument is groundless.

We are your peers in this case. We looked at your sources and found them lacking. You don't get to tell us whether the data that isn't there would be valid or helpful because it isn't there. We drew a conclusion based on an absence of evidence.

And there's nothing you can do to stop it. Not even bolding or italicizing your text. (Maybe try underlining it next time?)

I'd love to meet your girlfriend, by the way. Shame she goes to another school.

Wtf are you talking about peer reviewing for? My only opinion here was that your logical conclusion is dumb because you don't know how data works. That's just a straight up fact. I said nothing about classes. You attack people for "low parses" but refuse to accept the "high parses" because it's inconvenient to your argument and ignore the fact when making your conclusion that you don't have all the information. You took a cup of water and decided that was enough.