Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Now you want to claim that you meant "As far as I know".
This means you think what you said is true but you haven't double-checked it.
That is significantly different from "As far as we know".
"As far as we know" means WE, the community, have been given this info but it may be subject to change.
I know how to read. You don't know how to think.
But... we've known that for years now.
How is it moving the goalpost when I am simply reiterating what I originally said?
So the claim " loss of caravan means 100% loss, as far as WE know" is false.
The claim "loss of caravan means a portion is lost, as far as we know" is true.
Because so far, all we know is that a portion is lost. We don't know what happens to the rest.
The claim "loss of caravan means 100% loss as far as you know" is true (unless you were lying).
That's the thing with the English language, things are fairly imprecise.
If you didn't learn that in school, ask for a refund.
A doctor says, "She had a stroke that damaged her brain 100%, as far as we know."
"A hundred percent?"
"Well, we know the stroke damaged a portion of her brain, and we don't know if the other portion was damaged, but we don't know it wasn't damaged from the stroke, so...as far as we know, it's 100% damaged from the stroke."
No. That's not how it works.
The truth is - we don't know. And we leave it at that until we get more evidence.
That's the way honest discussion works.
You don't get to make shit up and just run with it as if it's true.
For all we know, you lose 100% of materials when you lose a caravan.
As far as we know, you lose a portion when you lose a caravan.
You are now understanding.
It's like a mini-breakthrough while training a toddler.
Indeed.
So that leaves the two options as either the materials that are not dropped as certificates are either destroyed, or they are given to the owner as certificates - which can then be taken via PvP.
Based on Intrepid looking at caravans as a high risk/reward activity, and the issues that would arise from auto generating items in players inventories, I would have to opt with the materials that are not dropped as certificates would be destroyed.
This is not confirmed, but it is one of only two viable possibilities.
"Loss of a caravan is 100% loss, as far as we know" is a false statement.
"Loss of a caravan is a portion loss, as far as we know" is a true statement.
Both statements are true.
As far as we know, either could end up being the case. Both will not, but either could.
I take back my mini-breakthrough with the toddler comment.
As far as we know, loss of a caravan is a portion.
Loss of a caravan being a portion is what we know so far.
Loss of a caravan is 100% loss is not something we know.
Loss of a caravan is 100% loss is a mere possibility; not something we know.
Loss of a caravan could be 100% loss. That is true. But it's not what you wrote.
For all we know, loss of a caravan could be 100% loss. That is true. But it's not what you wrote.
"As far as we know" does not meant the same thing as "for all we know".
"Loss of a caravan is 100% loss, as far as we know" is a false statement.
Anyways. I'm done. We've derailed this thread way too much.
That is what your argument here is reduced down to.
My point was clear to anyone not arguing semantics - which the above is the absolute definion of.
Also, I find it amusing how you keep claiming I am "shifting the goalposts" when I have been saying the exact same thing the whole time. You losing an argument is not me shifting the goalposts, it's just you getting further away from them.
I will reiterate my point - as far as we know, material loss on destruction of a caravan is 100%.
Noanni is guessing at 100% portion, but guessing that does not mean so far we know what the percentage portion is.
In order to support his claim of losing stuff being toxic, he's trying to exaggerate loss as much as possible and then present it as common enough for it to feel toxic.
So, he maximized the amount of stuff a caravan can hold and then said we know so far that the loss of stuff when a caravan is destroyed is 100% (portion). That it is a total loss.
When challenged on 100% being something we know, Noanni states that there are two possibilities: either the loss is 100% or it's not 100%. And he states that since he's guessing it is 100% and there is no concrete evidence that it's not 100%, it's logical to go with his guess until his guess is proven wrong.
But, that is not valid logic. It is not a valid claim.
There is a jar filled with gumballs.
We do not know whether the number of gumballs is odd or even.
The number of gumballs can only be odd or even.
Noanni guesses that the number of gumballs is even.
Just because Noanni guesses the number is even does not mean that the claim, "the number of gumballs is even, as far we know" is true. In fact, "the number of gumballs is even, as far we know" is a false claim because we still don't know whether the number of gumballs is odd or whether it's even.
That is basic logic.
Noanni loves to make shit up and then act as if it's true.
But, his claim "as far as we know, material loss on destruction of a caravan is 100%" remains false.
He's simply continuing to assert his false claim.
Which is fine...but that makes his insinuation that losing your stuff when your caravan is destroyed is toxic meaningless. We still don't know, so far, how much stuff is lost when a caravan is destroyed. As far as we know, a portion is lost. But we don't know what the portion is.
An honest interlocuter would place conditionals on the claim, "If loss of a caravan is 100% loss, then..."
But, Noanni knows that would severely weaken his argument so he dishonestly leaves off the conditionals in order to present a stronger argument.
Because at the end of the day, Noanni's primary goal is to troll.
We know there will be a portion of materials that drop as certificates - lets say (for arguments sake), that this is 50% of the contents of the caravan.
What we do not know is what happens to that other 50%.
There are basically two options. They can be destroyed, or they can be placed in the original owners inventory as a certificate to be redeemed at the origin point of the caravan - exactly the same as the certificates that dropped.
These are the only two options I can see, but you are welcome to come up with a third (you know, being actually productive in a discussion - not that you would know what that is).
Of these two, I straight up do not see Intrepid going the second route. That is messy, and it opens up a whole load of issues - especially when you consider multiple people can place items in caravans, multiple item types can be placed in them, and people with items in caravans other than the owner do not necessarily need to accompany that caravan.
So, to me, this leaves the first option as the most likely. Not the only option, the most likely option.
This makes it the default assumption we should make, as long as we keep remembering that it is not something that we know for sure.
Thus, as it is the default assumption we should make - until a better assumption comes along or Intrepid gives us more information, it is proper to say that losing a caravan is 100% material loss as far as we know.
The reason your gumball analogy isn't really working here is because there is no thought put in to whether there is an odd or even number of gumballs, it is just a random guess. You should know by now, I do not do random guesses - I think things through.
Now again, you are welcome to come up with a suggestion of an approach Intrepid could take here (put those years of working with David Georgeson to good use!), or you can say why you think it is more likely that Intrepid will auto-generate certificates in players inventories - or you can agree that 100% loss is the most likely case.
Or you can keep bitching and moaning about me - like some obsessed child.
Then, when you are challenged on that, you are changing the goalpost and saying what you mean is "we don't know", and you refuse to reframe the structure of the argument to reflect what you claim someone is supposed to understand from the original framing.
The phrase "as far as we know" means this is what we know so far. You want to keep using that phrasing even though it doesn't simply mean we don't know.
You don't distinguish the differences between "for all we know", "as far as we know" and "we don't know, but if...".
Which, honestly, could be distilled down to "If caravan loss is 100% loss, then...". But, you didn't write that because you wanted to stress "we know".
You don't understand basic logic.
You don't understand how to honestly present arguments.
But, that does not matter to you because, at the end of the day, you're just here to troll.
Yes, and what wee know so far is that the most likely thing for Intrepid to do is to have the materials not dropped as certificates be destroyed.
Read all of my above post, not just the first line. You'll either have something worthwhile to add to the discussion after that or nothing at all to say.
https://knightsofember.com/forums/members/winner909098.54
The rest of what you wrote in the post above indicates an argument like "I could be understanding something wrong, but... I BELIEVE loss of a caravan is MOST LIKELY 100% loss"
And then the response would be, "as far as we know, loss of a caravan is a portion loss." We have no evidence what that portion might be. It could be 30% loss. It could be 40% loss. It could be 60% loss.
It could be 100%. But, then there is no incentive for a driver to make a caravan run - especially not with max resources - when using a mule would be a percentage loss of resources that is less than 100%. And the portion for backpack and mule resource drops is most likely significantly less than 100% loss, otherwise it may as well be 100% loss.
What we know so far caravans is it's a portion loss. That's it. Whatever guess you make doesn't support your claim that losing stuff when a caravan is destroyed is severe enough to be toxic.
You can assume it's 100% all you want, but that is not what we know so far; rather that is what YOU assume. And you want to pass that off as what WE know so far.
And continuing to pass off what YOU assume as what WE know is dishonest.
Until we know what the percentage loss for a caravan truly is, we cannot make a reasonable conclusion about its toxicity with regard to losing stuff. According to the rules of logic.
What you think is most likely is irrelevant. And certainly is not convincing.
We both know that will never happen
could you post this on other threads, asking for a friend
I'm the friend