TEN Crucible league PoE facts that might make the Haters second guess their wrong BelIeFs

"

Phrazz wrote:

Crucible is what happens to a good idea when someone is hellbent on seasoning it with a 'dash' of friction.

By a "dash of friction" do you mean staying with The Vision™?

"

Gulch wrote:

By a "dash of friction" do you mean staying with The Vision™?

No.

"

innervation wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

innervation wrote:

I'm disappointed in those calling this a bait thread as a derogatory. One of the most interesting things is to watch people's reactions to unpopular facts.

True, WHEN they are couched in an interesting, thought provoking way and not merely deployed by someone who clearly has no stakes in the matter just for attention and prickly reactions. That's just trolling.

Couching the discussion in those things would make it more civil and elegant, but no more interesting. Probably less interesting, honestly. The simple deployment used here is pure. Scientific even. Like a Rorschach test that actually works.

Spoiler

The fact that the 'facts' in the OP are rarely actual facts is a delightful bonus. They are directionally true though and that's the important part! Ex. Crucible tree power creep absolutely outpaced nerfs. By a factor of 5x? Impossible to demonstrate.

Well no, because a Rorschach test is all about presenting something sans agenda or guidance. Were it that, OP would have stated ten facts about Crucible without any attempt at sway in the title or first post. But since OP's agenda is to stir shit and not simply allow people the agency to decide what the ink blot is, they straight up say "here's an ink blot that haters might have trouble denying is the female reproductive system" (to use the classic "main interpretation" of Rorschach test variants).

And that collation of facts without explicit intent would have been interesting. This? Not interesting. This is a lazy abuse of facts. It works for the OP's seeming agenda but otherwise adds nothing to a conversation y'all clearly need to have.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Well no, because a Rorschach test is all about presenting something sans agenda or guidance. Were it that, OP would have stated ten facts about Crucible without any attempt at sway in the title or first post. But since OP's agenda is to stir shit and not simply allow people the agency to decide what the ink blot is, they straight up say "here's an ink blot that haters might have trouble denying is the female reproductive system" (to use the classic "main interpretation" of Rorschach test variants).

And that collation of facts without explicit intent would have been interesting. This? Not interesting. This is a lazy abuse of facts. It works for the OP's seeming agenda but otherwise adds nothing to a conversation y'all clearly need to have.

What you said is completely and wholly wrong. The Rorschach test is all about presenting something with an agenda and guidance - the agenda of finding out what your subconcious mind points towards by guiding you through abstractions.

My post in itself is not a Rorschach test because this post is about me and what the facts look like to me. If there are any disputes about the validity of the facts, people can present their arguments.

I was speaking purely from the perspective of the one administering the test. Certainly they have an agenda as examiners/evaluators -- but not as apologists or advocates for or against what any given image might represent. It is completely inappropriate to use leading statements or loaded questions when trying to evaluate someone psychologically. Inappropriate, unethical and probably at its most extreme, illegal -- for example, police coercion during interrogations.

Thank you for not insulting my intelligence by denying that which I posit to be *your* agenda.

"

Kiss_Me_Quick wrote:

"

Valkaneer wrote:

[

You should rename your post "10 strawman statements based on my opinion", because they are total strawman's, you can't prove anything you said is actually true, and your post was made to incite people.

Of course it's allowable to purposely write post to incite people so long as the purpose is to promote the game...

Something being a strawman requires me to misrepresent someone else's already existing position. I have not named anyone in my post.

Feel free to choose one of these points and present your argument. If my statements are based on a logical fallacy, they should be pretty easy to debunk.

LOL, every single one of your "points" is built off expressions/opinions people have stated in these forums. You don't have to have a specific persons quote to strawman a position. What goes up must come down. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, meaning "the exception proves the rule to be true in cases not excepted."


"Rares were unchanged" for example, implies the position exist that, "rares were changed". A position that long predates your post and can be easily found on these forums.

"Players not understanding how development or game balancing works, does not mean that GGG is lying to them or that they worked an extra month on nothing"

The above is a good example of a strawman. Players main reasoning by leaps and bounds for saying GGG lied is not due to balance issues or lacking understanding of game development. It was based on GGG saying, not a nerf patch.

Game balance and lack of understand game development is also not the reason people said they worked and extra month for nothing. It was due to the tremendous amount of bugs and clearly untested mechanics. Unless you are trying to say GGG intended those monsters like the one I tried to help a player kill that was unkillable in Act 2 even by multiple players 30 lvls higher all trying to kill the monster at the same time. You don't need to be a developer to know what game bugs or bad game design is. You merely have to have some level of experience on what good game design is, and experience a patch with few bugs.


The amount of type-o's and wrong patch information proved a lack of quality that normally has been present in the past, and was not expected in current patch. Players having to call out poorly designed notables and still others making it into the release also was a showing in lack of quality. GGG changing them proves they were not well thought out.

It wasnt a nerf patch though. You have far more power than ever before. The nerfs were more than compensated by the power you get from the crucible trees.

probably a build guide player, these guys can't figure out the shifts in player power each league.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I was speaking purely from the perspective of the one administering the test. Certainly they have an agenda as examiners/evaluators -- but not as apologists or advocates for or against what any given image might represent. It is completely inappropriate to use leading statements or loaded questions when trying to evaluate someone psychologically. Inappropriate, unethical and probably at its most extreme, illegal -- for example, police coercion during interrogations.

Thank you for not insulting my intelligence by denying that which I posit to be *your* agenda.

1) The police does not use the Rorschach test.
2) Projective psychological tests are not interrogations.
2) In most countries, including the USA, the police is allowed to coerce or lie to you during an interrogation.

"

Valkaneer wrote:

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, meaning "the exception proves the rule to be true in cases not excepted."


"Rares were unchanged" for example, implies the position exist that, "rares were changed". A position that long predates your post and can be easily found on these forums.

I think these two paragraphs sums up your post pretty well. You use an old Latin expression as a foundation for your deductive logic, and you end up being wrong.

"

"Rares were unchanged" for example, implies the position exist that, "rares were changed".

It does not imply anything. It only states that such a position exists. You can assume that a counterfactual position exists but that might not be the case. The same way how "rares were changed" is a possible position without the implication that the rares were unchanged.

"Rares were unchanged" was a statement by GGG, not something that I just came up with.

"

Crucible Day 13
Apr 20, 2023 5:42 AM (GMT+3) - Based on some concern from the community that certain rare monster modifiers seem to be appearing more frequently in 3.21, we have investigated the spawn rates of rare monster modifiers in 3.21 compared to 3.20 and can conclusively say that they have not changed. We are also assessing the balance of some of the more powerful rare monster modifiers.

One thing I admit is that I find amusing is how widespread is this parrotted:

1 - The community complains that rare monsters are much deadlier, implying the rare monster modifiers were stealth buffed
2 - GGG makes a post that the spawn rate of rare modifiers is the same as last league (which doesn't say anything about the actual strength of the modifiers themselves, which is the main thing the community complains about)
3 - People go around quoting GGG that 'rares are unchanged' even though the literal text in that quote doesn't say that at all.

I honestly can't believe this misdirection is working for GGG as well as it does.