Combat Trackers: proposed compromise

There are lots of very polarizing opinions on combat trackers (aka DPS meters) on this forum.

Would the compromise here be personal combat trackers only?

This way I can see what I'm doing and what's happening to me, but I can't see any other interactions?

Add to this making it against the ToS to request/force others to share what they are seeing in their combat trackers?

With something like this an individual could try out different specs/gear for their class to see what works best for them. The risk they will be judged by others is low.

A raid leader could say something like "everyone check your combat trackers for damage taken. If you see "breath of fire" in there, that is avoidable damage that you are getting hit by so watch out for it next time." But they couldn't say something like "everybody whisper me your dps on that last pull".

Sure people would have ways to get around the ToS (e.g. discord), but it would greatly decrease the risk of being judged by others. Doing so would be virtually non-existent in pugs since most don't use discord.

Personally I'd like to see full combat trackers as I like to use the data to help myself and others, but I get that a lot of people have concerns about the risk of toxicity or the removal of immersion (both I disagree with, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion). In situations like this, a compromise in the middle might be best overall for the game.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

rikardp98 wrote: »

this is just a quote from the caravan wiki page

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.

Dygz

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

As far as we know, you lose a portion when you lose a caravan.

This is an accurate statement.

You are now understanding.

It's like a mini-breakthrough while training a toddler.

But that is not what you wrote.
"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.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

As far as we know, you lose a portion when you lose a caravan.

This is an accurate statement.

You are now understanding.

It's like a mini-breakthrough while training a toddler.

But that is not what you wrote.
"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.

Dygz

Again, you are changing the goalposts.

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.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

"As far as we know" does not meant the same thing as "for all we know".

I lol'd.

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%.

Daedrik45

@Dygz you are aware that a 100% portion of a loss is in fact 100% still a loss. I believe that’s what @Noaani is saying

Dygz

So far, we do not know the portion lost is 100%. That's the point.
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.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Noanni is guessing at 100% portion but saying that is something we know so far.

Correction - I am saying we don't know that, not that we do know that.

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.

Dygz

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Noanni is guessing at 100% portion but saying that is something we know so far.

Correction - I am saying we don't know that, not that we do know that.

No. You are framing it as what we know so far because that makes your argument appear stronger than what it actually is.
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.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

The phrase "as far as we know" means this is what we know so far.

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.

winner909098

How about we just calm down a bit and accept that most people on the forum cant be convinced one way or the other.

Asgerr

Too long of a repeat subject so I didn't read so here is a question: how did we go from Combat trackers to material loss from caravan pvp?

Dygz

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

The phrase "as far as we know" means this is what we know so far.

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.

I really have nothing to say that I haven't already told you numerous times.
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.

Nagash

winner909098 wrote: »

How about we just calm down a bit and accept that most people on the forum cant be convinced one way or the other.

We both know that will never happen

Dygz

Asgerr wrote: »

Too long of a repeat subject so I didn't read so here is a question: how did we go from Combat trackers to material loss from caravan pvp?

Noanni is trolling and I took the bait.

Wandering Mist

@Noaani and @Dygz I think your argument has gone in circles long enough, and now it's just on pointless repeat, especially when it's not even part of the original topic. Let's move on now please guys.

Nagash

Wandering Mist wrote: »

@Noaani and @Dygz I think your argument has gone in circles long enough, and now it's just on pointless repeat, especially when it's not even part of the original topic. Let's move on now please guys.

could you post this on other threads, asking for a friend

Asgerr

Nagash wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

@Noaani and @Dygz I think your argument has gone in circles long enough, and now it's just on pointless repeat, especially when it's not even part of the original topic. Let's move on now please guys.

could you post this on other threads, asking for a friend

I'm the friend

Dygz

No. I'm the friend!

Saedu

Soooo... about them personal combat trackers... super awesome idea right? I agree with the OP on this one

Child Item