Previous
I explicitly used I/O Psych to justify why an organization should be transparent. The research is there, the problem is that I didn't cite any, which is my fault. More on that below. I might as well have said international organization of flannel wearing unicorns declares transparency as a near universal good (they totally do, btw).
>>As a brief recap - so far I've seen the request, book-ended by a loaded question fallacy and an appeal to authority fallacy (post 669)...
Incorrect.
| Does the community of players know exactly how Ambushing works? Primarily: |
| (1) Calculating the Stance Reduction. |
| (2) Calculating the Critical Weighting. |
| My preliminary findings seem to indicate that ambushing skill determines the critical weighting. Additionally, a creature that is greater level than the ambushing character yields progressively less Critical Weighting. |
| Can a Name In Red illuminate how Ambushing works? The wiki and website are incredibly vague about this vital combat skill. |
There is no appeal to authority; no one is claiming to be an expert and no alleged expert is advancing a conclusion.
There is no loaded question. First, I only asked two questions, which was controversial? Second, I'm not making assumptions to support any conclusion. I'm stating my observations, not even quantified. One must advance a conclusion to suffer this fallacy.
>>...an attempt at humor which I greatly appreciated (post 676)...
Not a very good one, admittedly. :(
>>...a composition / division fallacy (post 678)...
| I don't want the formula form, I want the actual formula so I, as a player, can make an informed decision. Over 2 decades of playing GS and I'm absolutely baffled by the refusal to give players access to data to make informed decisions. It's just mindbogglingly bad policy. |
| I was clear in the OP that I wanted exact information if it existed. If we as a community don't have it, that's fine, I'll do the research when I can find the time. |
I'm not sure I understand this one. If you're pointing to the "need moar data to make informed decision," then there is no fallacy as I pointed about in the previous post as a byproduct of language. If you're referring to the fact that GMs have been not at all forthcoming with information over the years (until recently) when I said they have refused, then that's a fair point. Just today Estild released the formula for 1005!
>>...a relatively strong post that sadly rests on a false cause fallacy (post 681)...
I'm not sure I follow this one. I neither advance an argument for the causal relationship of anything in the post, nor assume there is a causal relationship for the contents of the post.
| >>You have what you need to make an informed decision: "train in these skills/have high bonus in these stats." If you fail to do either of those, you can expect to do poorly. |
| Saying "train X skill, have Y stats" is not information without knowing the degree it affects the outcome. Thinking that's an informed decision is, at best, deliberate ignorance. |
| Do I train from 10 to 20 ranks? |
| Do I train from 20 to 30 ranks? |
| Do I train from 30 to 40 ranks? |
| Do I train from X to Y ranks? |
| Do I stop at 40 ranks? Is it skill based? |
| Are the stats included at a 1:1 ratio as ranks? Or is it skills? |
| Is the bonus linear? logarithmic? step-wise? |
| How does skill or ranks affect Crit Weighting? |
| How does the level disparity of attacker to defender affect Crit Weighting? |
| How does skill or ranks affect Stance Reduction? |
| How does the level disparity of attacker to defender affect Stance Reduction? |
| How do I evaluate all the above in accordance with skill costs? |
| What is the likelihood my character can hide effectively? |
| How do I weight the frequency chance of hiding with ambush skills costs? |
| Will this be an effective hunting method? |
| Will I have fun with this hunting method? |
| And on, and On, and on. |
| Does training in Ambush increase Stance Reduction? Yes. |
| Does training in Ambush increase Critical Weighting? Yes. |
| What if the degree to both is so small that it is effectively zero? True statements yielding nothing. Actually, worse than nothing because the Player would be wasting Training Points. |
| Is this example a Straw Man? Yes. |
| What if the degree to both is slight to moderate, but the level disparity reduces the yield to nothing? |
| What if the degree to both means the likelihood of Stance Reduction is very low? This would require an entirely different set of combat tatics as the Character would then need to ensure the target was in offensive before Hiding and Ambushing. |
| Again, these are questions the Player should be able to evaluate. |
| This is why it drives me insane when people say, "statistical significance" as if it's meaningful. People immediately think there's something there, that it's noteworthy. But you can manufacture statistical significance easily, the more important question generally is, what was the effect size? Or more plainly to what degree was the relationship? |
| Characters have a finite number of Training Points per level. We absolutely should be able to evaluate the effects of those training points. |
| >>What you do not currently have is every tiny exact detail required to determine the absolute best min/max training regimen to all levels of the game, to squeeze every last scintilla of benefit from training points, rounding, et cetera. |
| True. |
| Although, you make it sound like evaluating data is a bad thing. Care to elaborate as to why you think the Player should not be making informed decisions, be it to min/max or simply to choose an effective hunting method? I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Honestly. |
| >>Generally speaking--since "the mechanics of the game" is pretty much how the company's livelihood is made--... |
| No. Not even close. What in the hell? |
| The livelihood resides in the framework that executes all the patchwork pieces of code. The expression of such into natural language for players is in no way damaging their IP. If you honestly thought that, then no RPG, Tabletop, Boardgame, etc. would publish the mechanics for fear of losing their livelihood. Can you imagine trying to play DnD, Deadlands, GURPS, Palladium, etc. and not knowing how to improve your combat skills other than, "more is better" but the degree to which you'll never know! This expression of mechanics is exactly what allows players to evaluate the game mechanics, and the game overall. |
| >>...I think that we are damn lucky to get anything out of them beyond what I said above: "This is what affects it." I am quite pleased when they break it down further (X contributes more than Y affects it more than Z), and pretty much any time they give an exact formula then it's Miller Time. |
| This is deeply troubling. To even think we would be lucky to have baseline documentation of mechanics is problematic. |
| >>But if they choose to keep some things secret, that's their prerogative. |
| It sure is! |
| Just think how super fun it would be to play a current generation MOBA if all the stat ratios were removed from all the champion abilities. Then go further and remove the degree to which each item improves each stat, only leaving that the item is an AP, AD, etc. item. How lucky we are to know that an AD item affects the my abilities by an unknown amount! What a time to be alive! |
| Keeping combat mechanics secret is their decision, but revealing that information hurts no one and certainly not Simutronics. |
>>..., a fallacy fallacy argument buttressed by an ad hominem fallacy (post 682), and then?...
Absolutely incorrect. I don't attack THROGG in the post. I do the exact opposite by agreeing with THROGG that it is her prerogative to not evaluate formulas.
| >>Yet, after 20 years of this "frustration", you still keep coming back and playing. They must be doing SOMETHING right. |
| I was asked by a friend to rejoin to evaluate Paladins and Shield maneuvers. I've already made decent progress on this evaluation including: debunking the paladin tank myth, 1615 raw damage outcomes, 1615 critical rank outcomes, augmentations to the profession in general and to spells specifically. Coming back to GS is about evaluating what is and what is not working insofar as Paladins are concerned. Shield Maneuvers are so bad, it is comical, but I haven't gotten around to writing up a detailed analysis. |
| >>I've been playing 20 years also, and have characters in every profession. I know what skills to train in to make them effective at their jobs; sometimes you have to make choices. |
| That is a choice NOT an _informed decision_. Stop conflating the two. |
| >>The character I play most presently has chosen to be less effective at lockmsithing, in order to be better at combat. |
| Congratulations. |
| >>All I need to know in order to do that well are the relevant skills/stats. |
| No! That's all you choose to evaluate. |
| >>Somehow my gals stumble through life without knowing any precise mathematical formulas. |
| I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than attempting to Straw Man. No person in this thread said it was necessary to know the exact formulas to progress in GS. |
| >>In fact, when someone does post a math formula, it gives me eyestrain, and I promptly ignore it. |
| Whatever floats your boat. As you said, you wouldn't evaluate the formula, that's fine. But you certainly understand your phenomenological experience should in no way restrict Players from being presented with information. |
>>Then, I would say I see the first attempt at 'defense' of the request, linking I/O Psychology as the 'objective justification' and then chose to express an opinion...
The entire I/O Pysch discipline is designed to evaluate organizations through quasi-scientific means. You may not agree, but that doesn't change the fact that I/O Psych research supports transparency (30 Helens Agree).
>>It wasn't welcomed.
That happens.
>>In my view, your supporting defense of your personal position entails defining materials, literature, research and inferred personal experience (none satisfactorily cited) in these matters.
Fair point. I honestly don't have the time to cite effective organizational communication with its clients. You've got me dead to rights there. I'd say "take my word for it" but I know I would rather fall down a flight of stairs than accept the word of a stranger. Now that would be an appeal to authority!
>>Yet, I/O Psychology has no bearing here, as the person making the request (you), the person opposing the request (in this case, me - although not really), and the people weighing in on the conversation for, against or undecided are neither in the organization known as Simutronics, nor are we clear on what Simuntronics as an organization communicates to its employees. I/O Psychology, with its theoretical and experiential branches works along two dimensions in six thematic areas to improve employee engagement and output.
While it is true that most of the outputs of I/O Psych are organization <-> employee, coursework does include information flow from organizations (simutronics) to clients (we the players), so it does have bearing on this particular topic. Look, I'll be honest, it gets really hairy rapidly because I/O Psych looks and feels incredibly interdisciplinary. It's the only field I know that evaluates organizations scientifically (well, quasi-scientifically) and has yielded tremendous gains in the marketplace. I'm willing to bet nearly every other similar field advocates for transparency. And, as you pointed out, I didn't cite a single piece of research. Let's agree to this: I'll remove I/O Psych from the table as support for anything.
>>A couple of politely attempted rejoinders to point this out were ignored. You have to admit that Robert was pretty crafty when he asked 'what's in it for them'? A reasoned response might have gone some way towards demonstrating this linkage satisfactorily. However, that didn't occur (circular argument fallacy).
I never even mention I/O psych as support for Robert's what's in it for them question. See the response I actually provided below. Which of those is circular?
| Among the many benefits I specifically spoke on: reducing confusion, making the game more accessible to new players, opening up build paths, and transitioning from all-to-often wrong conventional wisdom to fact (Droit's post reinforces this notion). |
>>Oh? I'm fairly sure somewhere I recall something about disputation attacking the idea, not the presenter.
Right, people are attacking my position. My statement that SIMU should release all the particulars. Not me, personally, because I advanced the position. I don't feel as though anyone has attacked me, at least.
>>I'm not sure after carefully reviewing the positions supplied that I would allocate the same 'success'. I know I certainly would not feel entitled myself to claim success of my position, based on that measure.
You alleged 6 (I think?) logical fallacies so far, 5 of which are not accurate that I quoted and detailed.
>>Another measure, and one I'm far more fond of is; the entire purpose of communication (of which disputation is a selectively characterized form) is to create alignment, understanding and agreement.
You must not work in academia! But honestly, the strongest ideas win out my sector. Well, that's not even close to true in reality; the strongest argued idea wins out, really.
>>And then, of course, there's the foregoing summary which demonstrates. . . success? I suppose, if one were committed to a very aggressive form of special pleading fallacy.
I took the position. People attacked the position. I supported the position with I/O Psych (let's agree that was totally unhelpful) but also offered other reasons why transparency is a good thing (Among the many benefits I specifically spoke on: reducing confusion, making the game more accessible to new players, opening up build paths, and transitioning from all-to-often wrong conventional wisdom to fact (Droit's post reinforces this notion)). Then attacks responded to my support of why transparency is not a good thing. I demonstrated why those attacks fall flat ((1) spoiled mystery [not true], (2) experience > knowledge [undeveloped], (3) fear of labels [appeal to emotion], (4) opacity > transparency [not true], (5) financial damage to Simutronics [not true], or (6) limited information == informed decision [not true by definition].). You attempted to identify logical fallacies in this post. I feel reasonably confident that I defended 5 of 6 of those attacks in this post. I don't see how special pleading applies here. You'll have to elaborate on that for me.
And again, let me reiterate, to what do you disagree with anything immediately below?
(1) spoiled mystery [not true], (2) experience > knowledge [undeveloped], (3) fear of labels [appeal to emotion], (4) opacity > transparency [not true], (5) financial damage to Simutronics [not true], or (6) limited information == informed decision [not true by definition].
>>And if nothing else is taken away from this particular post - it should be evident that one person's interpretation of a fallacy's existence and declaration of its impact to the disputation is quite possibly the worst of all fallacies to commit.
You have not properly identified the logical fallacies you alleged in this post as I've detailed.
I also strongly disagree that merely alleging fallacies is bad when they are detailed; it forces the argument to become stronger or disgarded.
.
I'm not sure where that leaves us other than this: what benefits does Simutronics gain by keeping the player base in the dark that you don't feel I've successfully attacked?
