The new Viper changes are great

[W00by]

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.

I don't have all the evidence, so if we're talking about the burden of proof, you haven't met it. And if you haven't cleared the burden of proof, I have no choice but to discard your argument.

In the case of this "cup of water" situation, if you're trying to prove there ARE fish in the sea, you have the ability to scoop up more and more water 'til you find one. And you're trying to prove you ARE skillful, so you should keep on scoopin' til you find some logs.

YOU are the one stopping at the cup. If you wanna provide more evidence, I am aaaaall ears, my friend. But 'til you can, you haven't met the burden, and you're shouting into the wind.

[Eudyptes]

I don't have all the evidence, so if we're talking about the burden of proof, you haven't met it. And if you haven't cleared the burden of proof, I have no choice but to discard your argument.

In the case of this "cup of water" situation, if you're trying to prove there ARE fish in the sea, you have the ability to scoop up more and more water 'til you find one. And you're trying to prove you ARE skillful, so you should keep on scoopin' til you find some logs.

YOU are the one stopping at the cup. If you wanna provide more evidence, I am aaaaall ears, my friend. But 'til you can, you haven't met the burden, and you're shouting into the wind.

But how have YOU met the burden of proof with your claim? You were the first one to make a claim. I used the exact same evidence you used to discredit what you said. You can't just decide it's good enough for you but not for me. My ONLY claim in this entire thread was "you cannot come up with a reasonable conclusion based on data that are low sample sizes and without context". Which is absolutely true.

[W00by]

But how have YOU met the burden of proof with your claim? You were the first one to make a claim. I used the exact same evidence you used to discredit what you said. You can't just decide it's good enough for you but not for me. My ONLY claim in this entire thread was "you cannot come up with a reasonable conclusion based on data that are low sample sizes and without context". Which is absolutely true.

I think I've met the burden quite nicely, actually! MY claim is that you probably aren't skillful because there's no evidence that demonstrates such a thing, and therefore your supposed expertise on a subject is less valuable than the expertise of those who ARE able to demonstrate such expertise. All I have to do is explain that it's totally fine to say that it's highly probable something doesn't exist if there's 0 evidence pointing toward its existence -- especially when someone is actively trying to obfuscate any evidence that could point one way or another.

You're asking people to say it's possible Bigfoot could be real just because no one has objectively disproven it. Or that your girlfriend from another school is totally real because I can't know who she is.

People are fair to draw their conclusions about you based on an ABSENCE of data. Taking this idea to its extreme, if our characters weren't posted on our profile, no one could objectively PROVE that I'm not Sfia Pirion or Xenosys Vex or that I didn't World First this raid tier i totally did you guys. But if I refused to prove it after you asked me to, would you believe me? (Or maybe this is my alt and I DID world first. how crazy would that be.) Maybe I can't prove it because I don't have enough data, or maybe I can't prove it because I'm a liar, but I still can't prove it.

Like, dude, we get that the sample sizes are low and without context. But them not being there is still reasonable cause to believe that you don't really know what you're talking about. Like, I could claim to be a rich lawyer who graduated top of my class from Harvard Law, but if I'm unwilling or unable to prove that, then no one has to believe me. And no one has to believe you, regardless of the lack of data. "Ummm acshually u can't PROVE I'm not the GOAT *pushes up glasses*."

I've demonstrated my point to anyone with a functional cerebral cortex I think, so this will be my last reply related to this particular subject.

[Eudyptes]

You know what, never mind, this whole argument is actually ridiculous lol. I'm 100% correct in my statement, and nothing you say can change the fact that you can't use inconsistent, incomplete data from small sample sizes that ranges from grey to orange while you have no context of what variables may have altered those numbers to gauge a person's skill level. That's just faulty logic.

Beyond that, unless you or anyone else here are actually devs then your opinions don't actually matter for anything. Whether it's me, you, or any other rando on here Viper probably isn't going to revert and likely won't change again until the next xpac. This weird battle for authority over "who can speak" means literally nothing other than being able to wear a burger king crown with pride.

My invitation to run an EX with me is still open btw. I'm actually a pretty good dps and not trying to hide anything. I just never felt the need to "prove" myself because honestly I'm getting older and it just doesn't really matter to me anymore.

[Bobby66]

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."

It is reduced but does not mean it is a lesser class or a worse class overall. In the objective sense. It is less and worse off for you but for someone else it may not be the case.

The lack of interaction negatively impacts you and you can say you personally hate the change ans feel the job is worse off. That is a personal truth not an objective fact.

At the core your enjoy was impacted and that is an objective fact true to you and others that feel the same.

Back to my smn example. I loved old smn hate new kne due to everything that was removed and changed.

As stated this does not make the class overall worse ir less to everyone but it does make it less or worse to those that preferred the old play style. We cannot make the claim if they change was a failure or not until we see numbers of people that play the class. At that point if they are lower by a large margin then one could argue objectively was a bad change and should ne reverted.

Hope that makes sense.

[ovIm]

Hope that makes sense.

it really does not to me, but thank you still for taking your time in typing out your reply, I fear we may simply not meet eye to eye here (:

[Leonus]

It is reduced but does not mean it is a lesser class or a worse class overall. In the objective sense. It is less and worse off for you but for someone else it may not be the case.

The lack of interaction negatively impacts you and you can say you personally hate the change ans feel the job is worse off. That is a personal truth not an objective fact.

At the core your enjoy was impacted and that is an objective fact true to you and others that feel the same.

Back to my smn example. I loved old smn hate new kne due to everything that was removed and changed.

As stated this does not make the class overall worse ir less to everyone but it does make it less or worse to those that preferred the old play style. We cannot make the claim if they change was a failure or not until we see numbers of people that play the class. At that point if they are lower by a large margin then one could argue objectively was a bad change and should ne reverted.

Hope that makes sense.

I think a lot of people on this forum like to believe their takes, on whatever, are usually objective facts when they are honestly just personal feelings/feelings most cases when it comes to what they like and dislike and how it affects their enjoyment of something.

Very well said though.

[Morr_Ar]

It is reduced but does not mean it is a lesser class or a worse class overall. In the objective sense. It is less and worse off for you but for someone else it may not be the case.

The lack of interaction negatively impacts you and you can say you personally hate the change ans feel the job is worse off. That is a personal truth not an objective fact.

At the core your enjoy was impacted and that is an objective fact true to you and others that feel the same.

Back to my smn example. I loved old smn hate new kne due to everything that was removed and changed.

As stated this does not make the class overall worse ir less to everyone but it does make it less or worse to those that preferred the old play style. We cannot make the claim if they change was a failure or not until we see numbers of people that play the class. At that point if they are lower by a large margin then one could argue objectively was a bad change and should ne reverted.

Hope that makes sense.

Enjoyment is experienced subjectively. However reason-based arguments and analysis as to whether a given design change adds or detracts from the skill ceiling and skill expression of a class are less subjective.

Generally reducing the skill ceiling of a given game system is only a net positive where that same system was promoting the skill floor to an unreasonable level for the average player. I have not seen a credible argument that NG uptime was preventing some large swathe of players from playing Viper at a basic level. Removing it has slightly dropped the skill floor but to a larger extent dropped the skill ceiling, from a decision making and forward planning perspective.

Viper is a job requiring few keybinds, with its single target skills falling into 4 separate combos that don’t have much direct interaction. It is also generous in not breaking combos if you have to jump to another combo such as Uncoiled Fury or Dreadwinder. The job is thus very forgiving to play at a basic or even intermediate level.

Popular consensus also does not make something objectively correct. If a majority of people prefer something, all that says is that they prefer it. It does not form evidence for the quality of a given design. Jobs can, and have been, popular in FFXIV despite being stuck in a design nadir, purely based on aesthetics and personal attachment. That popularity does not vindicate the poor decisions of the job designers.

[Wolf_Heartnet]

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.



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)

Aight, I can respect your opinion and why you feel offended on my thread. Unlike the other threads, I was thanking the devs and not making a complaint thread. So, if it upset you that I made yet another thread on the topic then I apologize for not taking into consideration how it may annoy people who likes organization.

However, I'm not dancing on the grave but I can understand with your negative outlook that you may see it that way. This thread was simply made in appreciation of the current Viper being more fun and while you may think its OBJECTIVELY bad, I don't see it that way cause again, many players have fun and enjoy their fun in different ways and you can never please anyone in that regard. I don't see it as objectively bad.
In this thread, I have only called you out for being toxic. Not an elitist.

Thanks on actually being more constructive on this post as it actually helped me understand your case more rather than just talking about parses.

[Bobby66]

Enjoyment is experienced subjectively. However reason-based arguments and analysis as to whether a given design change adds or detracts from the skill ceiling and skill expression of a class are less subjective.

Generally reducing the skill ceiling of a given game system is only a net positive where that same system was promoting the skill floor to an unreasonable level for the average player. I have not seen a credible argument that NG uptime was preventing some large swathe of players from playing Viper at a basic level. Removing it has slightly dropped the skill floor but to a larger extent dropped the skill ceiling, from a decision making and forward planning perspective.

Viper is a job requiring few keybinds, with its single target skills falling into 4 separate combos that don’t have much direct interaction. It is also generous in not breaking combos if you have to jump to another combo such as Uncoiled Fury or Dreadwinder. The job is thus very forgiving to play at a basic or even intermediate level.

Popular consensus also does not make something objectively correct. If a majority of people prefer something, all that says is that they prefer it. It does not form evidence for the quality of a given design. Jobs can, and have been, popular in FFXIV despite being stuck in a design nadir, purely based on aesthetics and personal attachment. That popularity does not vindicate the poor decisions of the job designers.

I said it could be argued if the amount of players is reduced one could make the argument that it was a bad change and should be reverted. I am not making the claim if it would be a good or bad argument. Just one could be made.

Reason and analytics when it comes to if a job is worse off or less is still based around a subjective bias not objective. At least if someone used the mettic that a large number of players stopped playing one could make the argument and make some correlation that the change is what lead people to stop playing said class which is a product that supports poor class design.

It is not inherently poor class design to make things easier it is just a product of a different design philosophy. One people make not agree with but if that is their design philosophy and goal does not mean it is wrong though.

People are saying the enjoy current vpr and approve of the changes. It may be a poor decision to you but not to others that is the entire point I am trying to make. Your enjoyment and desire for the class is not objectively superior over the current change. They are just different.