I think the consensus seems to be that the challenge is coming down to who as the most charisma, i.e ego, as debating is a battle of attrition of ego damage.
Frankly I found the mechanic a bore, but if people like it, then who am I to judge? I simply found that a flavorless event could definitely use some spicing up, as it was quite literally the quickest and least exciting of the events.
I also want you to know, Arcanis, one day you're going to have an actually good idea and people are going to dismiss it as whining, baseless BS if you keep making threads like these.
And herein lies a crucial problem with that mindset of yours and a few others that squat around the forums, you seem to be under the consensus that negative feedback based on the individual rather than the suggestion is apparently a 'thing'.
It is a thing. Intent, tone, and source are all very important to a civil discourse. Suggestions, regardless of their validity, pass through the filter of human interaction.
For example: if there was an envoy that said "Shuyin sucks, Synkarin sucks, Enyalida sucks, Elanorwen sucks, Rivius sucks, my X skill isn't useful and needs a buff, Tanin sucks, Kelly sucks," their skill that actually may need a buff is lost because everyone stopped listening much earlier.
What would happen if they did the opposite?
"Shuyin is awesome, Synkarin is awesome, Enyalida is awesome, Elanorwen is awesome, Rivius is awesome, my X skill isn't useful and needs a buff, Tanin is awesome, Kelly is awesome"?
I think the consensus seems to be that the challenge is coming down to who as the most charisma, i.e ego, as debating is a battle of attrition of ego damage.
Frankly I found the mechanic a bore, but if people like it, then who am I to judge? I simply found that a flavorless event could definitely use some spicing up, as it was quite literally the quickest and least exciting of the events.
I also want you to know, Arcanis, one day you're going to have an actually good idea and people are going to dismiss it as whining, baseless BS if you keep making threads like these.
And herein lies a crucial problem with that mindset of yours and a few others that squat around the forums, you seem to be under the consensus that negative feedback based on the individual rather than the suggestion is apparently a 'thing'.
It is a thing. Intent, tone, and source are all very important to a civil discourse. Suggestions, regardless of their validity, pass through the filter of human interaction.
For example: if there was an envoy that said "Shuyin sucks, Synkarin sucks, Enyalida sucks, Elanorwen sucks, Rivius sucks, my X skill isn't useful and needs a buff, Tanin sucks, Kelly sucks," their skill that actually may need a buff is lost because everyone stopped listening much earlier.
Did you seriously just try to defend the "ad hominem"? Seriously?
For example: if there was an envoy that said "Shuyin sucks, Synkarin sucks, Enyalida sucks, Elanorwen sucks, Rivius sucks, my X skill isn't useful and needs a buff, Tanin sucks, Kelly sucks," their skill that actually may need a buff is lost because everyone stopped listening much earlier.
Almost thought it was me, but I would never say such a thing about Rivius.
I think the consensus seems to be that the challenge is coming down to who as the most charisma, i.e ego, as debating is a battle of attrition of ego damage.
Frankly I found the mechanic a bore, but if people like it, then who am I to judge? I simply found that a flavorless event could definitely use some spicing up, as it was quite literally the quickest and least exciting of the events.
I also want you to know, Arcanis, one day you're going to have an actually good idea and people are going to dismiss it as whining, baseless BS if you keep making threads like these.
And herein lies a crucial problem with that mindset of yours and a few others that squat around the forums, you seem to be under the consensus that negative feedback based on the individual rather than the suggestion is apparently a 'thing'.
It is a thing. Intent, tone, and source are all very important to a civil discourse. Suggestions, regardless of their validity, pass through the filter of human interaction.
For example: if there was an envoy that said "Shuyin sucks, Synkarin sucks, Enyalida sucks, Elanorwen sucks, Rivius sucks, my X skill isn't useful and needs a buff, Tanin sucks, Kelly sucks," their skill that actually may need a buff is lost because everyone stopped listening much earlier.
Did you seriously just try to defend the "ad hominem"? Seriously?
SMH
Let me put it this way.
Let's say a kleptomaniac is A. And a shopkeeper is B.
A steals something from B's shop. Gets caught.
A states "I will never steal again!"
B, being a logically minded person, believes that A is being truthful and lets him/her go.
A comes back a day later and tries to steal another item, gets caught.
B apprehends him and calls the police.
A serves his time. He writes a letter from jail saying "I will never steal again" to B.
B, absolutely hating the ad hominem fallacy, believes him.
A gets out of jail and comes to the store. B is not cautious at all because A stated that he would never steal again.
A steals again and gets away with it because B was too busy with a logic stick up his ass.
Wait, wait... did someone seriously suggest vengeance/psychodrama to replace debating in Justice?
For the former... uhhh... how are you going to deal with a tie? Throw 2 people into a vengeance game? Are we forgetting that the populace can win with more than one player left standing?
For the latter... uhhh, sure, let's go on about how justice is unjust when bard specs are going in there and dominating the field but someone that hasn't been farming ikons since they came out (possibly because there was no event related to those) is definitely going to have a great chance of winning the psychodrama fights... unless you're proposing that a set be created that is given to every participant to build their gestalt, etc, etc.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
I think the consensus seems to be that the challenge is coming down to who as the most charisma, i.e ego, as debating is a battle of attrition of ego damage.
Frankly I found the mechanic a bore, but if people like it, then who am I to judge? I simply found that a flavorless event could definitely use some spicing up, as it was quite literally the quickest and least exciting of the events.
I also want you to know, Arcanis, one day you're going to have an actually good idea and people are going to dismiss it as whining, baseless BS if you keep making threads like these.
And herein lies a crucial problem with that mindset of yours and a few others that squat around the forums, you seem to be under the consensus that negative feedback based on the individual rather than the suggestion is apparently a 'thing'.
It is a thing. Intent, tone, and source are all very important to a civil discourse. Suggestions, regardless of their validity, pass through the filter of human interaction.
For example: if there was an envoy that said "Shuyin sucks, Synkarin sucks, Enyalida sucks, Elanorwen sucks, Rivius sucks, my X skill isn't useful and needs a buff, Tanin sucks, Kelly sucks," their skill that actually may need a buff is lost because everyone stopped listening much earlier.
Did you seriously just try to defend the "ad hominem"? Seriously?
SMH
if by 'defend' you mean 'explain,' then yes! I don't believe I advocated for either side. By definition logic and logical fallacies often fail to consider emotions. Logically, the civil discourse also has to account for human interaction. Seriously!
Wait, wait... did someone seriously suggest vengeance/psychodrama to replace debating in Justice?
For the former... uhhh... how are you going to deal with a tie? Throw 2 people into a vengeance game? Are we forgetting that the populace can win with more than one player left standing?
For the latter... uhhh, sure, let's go on about how justice is unjust when bard specs are going in there and dominating the field but someone that hasn't been farming ikons since they came out (possibly because there was no event related to those) is definitely going to have a great chance of winning the psychodrama fights... unless you're proposing that a set be created that is given to every participant to build their gestalt, etc, etc.
Loki's advocate here, but, what about the Deck of the Fates game? Make a special event-related deck that everyone gets to keep afterwards, do it tournament-style?
Wait, wait... did someone seriously suggest vengeance/psychodrama to replace debating in Justice?
For the former... uhhh... how are you going to deal with a tie? Throw 2 people into a vengeance game? Are we forgetting that the populace can win with more than one player left standing?
For the latter... uhhh, sure, let's go on about how justice is unjust when bard specs are going in there and dominating the field but someone that hasn't been farming ikons since they came out (possibly because there was no event related to those) is definitely going to have a great chance of winning the psychodrama fights... unless you're proposing that a set be created that is given to every participant to build their gestalt, etc, etc.
Loki's advocate here, but, what about the Deck of the Fates game? Make a special event-related deck that everyone gets to keep afterwards, do it tournament-style?
I thought one of the main complaints on the current debating style of Justice was that it was based on luck. How is a fate game not based on luck? I've had cards come up in fate that couldn't beat a single card in my opponent's hand.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
It's Justice though. Think of it like two lawyers arguing in a courtroom. The person with more charisma and can play to the jury better than the other wins the case, barring seriously damning evidence. That's why there's an option to PONTIFICATE during the debate.
Have you ever even seen the definitions for Pettifoggery, Pontification and Passion? They are -all- illogical debate tactics.
And lawyers do this in real life. They do. That's. Justice.
If a psychodrama event happened, and I'm not necessarily saying that it should, the way to do it would be drafting for gestalt construction, elimination tournament within the draft pods, and then repeating until you get the final top X drafting together.
That rewards people for clever gestalt building on the spot, and if you keep the matches within draft pods it reduces the risk of people randomly having counter gestalts to each other. Not that the gestalt building strategy is particularly deep. You'd probably want to pull some of the strongest ikons (I'm looking at you, stroke of divine luck/functional reprints) out of the pool entirely. That brings the random element down to the baseline chances of ikons working or not, which is significant but also a big part of assessing ikon values.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
It's Justice though. Think of it like two lawyers arguing in a courtroom. The person with more charisma and can play to the jury better than the other wins the case, barring seriously damning evidence. That's why there's an option to PONTIFICATE during the debate.
Have you ever even seen the definitions for Pettifoggery, Pontification and Passion? They are -all- illogical debate tactics.
And lawyers do this in real life. They do. That's. Justice.
Standard courtroom rules apply: When the facts on your side then you argue PETTIFOGGERY. When the law is on your side then you argue PONTIFICATION. When morality is on your side then you argue PASSION.
Yeah, maybe I'm wrong about debating. I was never very good at it, and most of what I have coded for it was based on conversations I had with Morbo. While I understand you can pick up on people's mindset strategies, what stops someone from completely randomizing their mindsets? I believe Morbo used to go into Justice doing that and it served him well.
Yeah, maybe I'm wrong about debating. I was never very good at it, and most of what I have coded for it was based on conversations I had with Morbo. While I understand you can pick up on people's mindset strategies, what stops someone from completely randomizing their mindsets? I believe Morbo used to go into Justice doing that and it served him well.
Absolutely nothing. I do that myself usually.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
I randomize my mindsets and let warbling trill float me past most debates (though I really do have trouble debating @Delphas, like he mentioned earlier, which was so frustrating!
Pejat, the last Justice winner, coded his own debating thing. Again, I say, it's really shitty to cheapen his win by saying it's all luck.
B, absolutely hating the ad hominem fallacy, believes him.
..what. Nothing you said has anything to do with ad hominem.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem,
means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather
than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it
is a fallacy
in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some
irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being
criticized.[2]Ad hominem
reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the
credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of
moral and practical reasoning.[3]
Shopkeeper B failed to realise the bolded.
In this case, Shopkeeper B is Daganev. And kleptomaniac A is Arcanis. Eventually, his credibility will crumble based on how many threads he has made with little to no information on the subject or practice within it -- only looking at it and saying "this seems unfair ))))): ".
I'm guilty of pulling a few Arcanis's. One that stuck with me was Shofangi slitthroat, which I argued shouldn't cost 3p because of its crucial nature. After being rebuffed, I actually read the report over it. I still think that the power cost should be set to 2 or 1, and retain a 2mo loss, but in the end Shofangi have other kill methods involving either Crunch or extreme amounts of bleeding and/or damage.
Now that the example is set, let us all put the names down between our feet and back away slowly. We don't need to say ``Pulling an X'' or ``Pulling a Y'', because I think the point has been made and hopefully no one feels like an ass.
Remember: we're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice.
Wait, wait... did someone seriously suggest vengeance/psychodrama to replace debating in Justice?
For the former... uhhh... how are you going to deal with a tie? Throw 2 people into a vengeance game? Are we forgetting that the populace can win with more than one player left standing?
For the latter... uhhh, sure, let's go on about how justice is unjust when bard specs are going in there and dominating the field but someone that hasn't been farming ikons since they came out (possibly because there was no event related to those) is definitely going to have a great chance of winning the psychodrama fights... unless you're proposing that a set be created that is given to every participant to build their gestalt, etc, etc.
Loki's advocate here, but, what about the Deck of the Fates game? Make a special event-related deck that everyone gets to keep afterwards, do it tournament-style?
Eventru did this once that I am aware of. I placed fourth.
He very clearly said it's probably not going to happen again. There's a ton of work on the admin side to do that stuff.
Mayor Steingrim, the Grand Schema says to you, "Well, as I recall you kinda leave a mark whereever you go."
I think it's pretty lame of Arcanis to cheapen basically all the winners of the Justice Seal to just "luck lol u scrub".
Pejat won because he found the chink in Chade's attitudes during their debate and capitalised on it, while also being probably 25 cha. He prepared for that, just like he prepared for Harmony with @Talan.
Remember that time in Stewartsville not too long ago when @Kelly fought for the village leader against basically everyone southside (as a paladin) while also holding the influence, and ended up winning the village by convincing her? That's not luck bud.
I won't deny that Justice belongs to the bard specs, particularly warbling trill and shadowsinger faeling. But anyone can be just -aa- faeling. It's a Seal contest. You try going faeling and running in there without a debate strategy and let me know how that works out for you. But the people that are in it to win it will bulldoze over you.
@Maligorn: You are really talking to the wrong person, as I have placed in every year I have entered of Justice regardless of my guild at the time.
Since you want to focus on trill as a counter point though: Faeling is 16 racial (no spec), warbling trill is 18. 2 Charisma is something like 600 diference in ego base, but more importantly it means your damage and SPEED are both higher. in a game where people are mostly otherwise equal, that is a big advantage. This is the same reason I dislike the great house random bonus, which is the only bonus they allowed that "not everyone can get".
Fun fact: Talan actually was a warbling Trill with the family bonus, she was the epitome of t he only advantages in that contest. You fell for a redirection, she didn't make any actual points or logical arguments as to why those two things remained or why they should.
I think it's pretty lame of Arcanis to cheapen basically all the winners of the Justice Seal to just "luck lol u scrub".
Pejat won because he found the chink in Chade's attitudes during their debate and capitalised on it, while also being probably 25 cha. He prepared for that, just like he prepared for Harmony with @Talan.
Remember that time in Stewartsville not too long ago when @Kelly fought for the village leader against basically everyone southside (as a paladin) while also holding the influence, and ended up winning the village by convincing her? That's not luck bud.
I won't deny that Justice belongs to the bard specs, particularly warbling trill and shadowsinger faeling. But anyone can be just -aa- faeling. It's a Seal contest. You try going faeling and running in there without a debate strategy and let me know how that works out for you. But the people that are in it to win it will bulldoze over you.
@Maligorn: You are really talking to the wrong person, as I have placed in every year I have entered of Justice regardless of my guild at the time.
Since you want to focus on trill as a counter point though: Faeling is 16 racial (no spec), warbling trill is 18. 2 Charisma is something like 600 diference in ego base, but more importantly it means your damage and SPEED are both higher. in a game where people are mostly otherwise equal, that is a big advantage. This is the same reason I dislike the great house random bonus, which is the only bonus they allowed that "not everyone can get".
Fun fact: Talan actually was a warbling Trill with the family bonus, she was the epitome of t he only advantages in that contest. You fell for a redirection, she didn't make any actual points or logical arguments as to why those two things remained or why they should.
Do people really take stats into that high a regard for debates? Yes, ego is higher, speed is definitely higher (the biggest factor here). Even including beasts and all the applicable buffs though, the playing field really isn't that diverse. To me, it seems more like people who are committed to excelling at it (strategies and buff stacking included), versus those who find it a casual, entirely random experience.
Debates definitely let you outwit people, if you know 100% what you're doing, just like combat. It's also not nearly as complicated as combat, sure. It's not supposed to be. (though debate afflictions really aren't irrelevant, as much as most people like to ignore them
Most of my experience is from High Elfen, sure, which is admittedly not a low cha spec. But even so, my record against Viynain when he was a Minstrel was a solid 2/3 (Viynain is the only one I deliberately counted over the years, Viy rivalry sorry everybody else).
If somebody isn't buffed at all, they're simply going to lose, sure. But with two opponents, equally prepared (and Justice has always been very strict about what you can or cannot prepare), it really is a contest of wits. In that situation, considering reflexive/beast healing, you need two to three consecutive, very good hits, or BAD hits from the opponent on your good defense, in a row. Outside of that, there's plenty of time to hit ego attrition on middling hits over time. When you get backfires, your opponent is certainly curing ahead of you. When it does boil down to pure luck, the debate can last a really long time. Those particular debates are super rare, IMHO, and don't happen at all when even ONE side knows what they're doing. It's only luck when neither side has a clue.
It's an avenue not often explored by most, and in that I entirely agree. But because most people explore it doesn't mean it's broken, or random. Skill can be enough of a difference that I can make a statement bold enough that any revolt I've ever participated in (especially peaced ones, lol) was won by my side. (
Plenty of people are around who are interested enough, and are willing to help you figure out the nuances of debates that you might not realize at first glance. Sidd has been super helpful for me over the years, always willing to point out where my tactics have been wrong. He's also really good, and an excellent practice partner.
Mayor Steingrim, the Grand Schema says to you, "Well, as I recall you kinda leave a mark whereever you go."
I guess the level 3 sip bonus and level 1 sparkle balance bonus just don't count as actual points or logical arguments.
First let me delete layers of quoting.... There we go!
Attack recovery is the biggest factor if you both know what you are doing, if we hit at the same time, you get to counter first, which I can't stop. Trill will be +600 or so higher base ego, then add in compounding buffs and it is nearly 1K more ego. Since sipping is based on max as well this is eating into the "advantage" from faeling. To really compare these fairly we would need the healing per second average. +100 sipping won't matter when each side is taking thousands of damage, but being able to recover and change mindset will be huge.
Related though> I am tempted to look at exactly what this means......... it would take the formula from normal sipping (which is already a range) and increase it 15% I presume. If I sit down with it awhile we could probably find the effect this would lead to. I need to grab my equation for sipping, but it's at my house, which I won't be at for a day or two still.
I have managed to shatter Xenthos and glom faelings as an illy hood and viscanti during village revolts.... So I don't understand why people don't think it takes skill and planning
Comments
SMH
Perfect logic and semantics aren't realistic. Don't kid yourself.
Signature!
Let's say a kleptomaniac is A. And a shopkeeper is B.
A steals something from B's shop. Gets caught.
A states "I will never steal again!"
B, being a logically minded person, believes that A is being truthful and lets him/her go.
A comes back a day later and tries to steal another item, gets caught.
B apprehends him and calls the police.
A serves his time. He writes a letter from jail saying "I will never steal again" to B.
B, absolutely hating the ad hominem fallacy, believes him.
A gets out of jail and comes to the store. B is not cautious at all because A stated that he would never steal again.
A steals again and gets away with it because B was too busy with a logic stick up his ass.
For the former... uhhh... how are you going to deal with a tie? Throw 2 people into a vengeance game? Are we forgetting that the populace can win with more than one player left standing?
For the latter... uhhh, sure, let's go on about how justice is unjust when bard specs are going in there and dominating the field but someone that hasn't been farming ikons since they came out (possibly because there was no event related to those) is definitely going to have a great chance of winning the psychodrama fights... unless you're proposing that a set be created that is given to every participant to build their gestalt, etc, etc.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Have you ever even seen the definitions for Pettifoggery, Pontification and Passion? They are -all- illogical debate tactics.
And lawyers do this in real life. They do. That's. Justice.
That rewards people for clever gestalt building on the spot, and if you keep the matches within draft pods it reduces the risk of people randomly having counter gestalts to each other. Not that the gestalt building strategy is particularly deep. You'd probably want to pull some of the strongest ikons (I'm looking at you, stroke of divine luck/functional reprints) out of the pool entirely. That brings the random element down to the baseline chances of ikons working or not, which is significant but also a big part of assessing ikon values.
Standard courtroom rules apply:
When the facts on your side then you argue PETTIFOGGERY.
When the law is on your side then you argue PONTIFICATION.
When morality is on your side then you argue PASSION.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Pejat, the last Justice winner, coded his own debating thing. Again, I say, it's really shitty to cheapen his win by saying it's all luck.
Signature!
B, absolutely hating the ad hominem fallacy, believes him.
..what. Nothing you said has anything to do with ad hominem.
Shopkeeper B failed to realise the bolded.
In this case, Shopkeeper B is Daganev. And kleptomaniac A is Arcanis. Eventually, his credibility will crumble based on how many threads he has made with little to no information on the subject or practice within it -- only looking at it and saying "this seems unfair ))))): ".
I'm guilty of pulling a few Arcanis's. One that stuck with me was Shofangi slitthroat, which I argued shouldn't cost 3p because of its crucial nature. After being rebuffed, I actually read the report over it. I still think that the power cost should be set to 2 or 1, and retain a 2mo loss, but in the end Shofangi have other kill methods involving either Crunch or extreme amounts of bleeding and/or damage.
Now that the example is set, let us all put the names down between our feet and back away slowly. We don't need to say ``Pulling an X'' or ``Pulling a Y'', because I think the point has been made and hopefully no one feels like an ass.
Remember: we're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice.
I guess the level 3 sip bonus and level 1 sparkle balance bonus just don't count as actual points or logical arguments.