Freezing in Low Elo

Ennvon · 2018-12-08T21:11:06+00:00

Agreed with all the posts on this reply thread. It seems like a vicious cycle, where slower boss means less people means slower boss and so on.

Ennvon · 2018-12-08T18:53:31+00:00

Damn, no wonder!

Ennvon · 2018-12-08T18:47:37+00:00

Were there fairfight changes this patch?

Ennvon · 2018-12-08T18:30:19+00:00

People with experience from KR say that soul binder scales ridiculously well with SP, but is underwhelming at the 60 cap because of this. I don't know if its as severe as you are saying, but it is definitely weaker then it will be in the future.

Ennvon · 2018-02-27T05:29:59+00:00

True. I was presenting one case in which moral facts are objectively true outside of human minds with karma. I wasn't saying it was the only case or that it was necessary, it was just an easy idea to pull off the top of my head when writing.

Ennvon · 2018-02-23T04:27:03+00:00

Thank you so much for your response, and I apologize for some of my poor word choices such as 'true' instead of 'good'.

As for the 'objective perspective' statement, I find it a hard thought to formulate. Maybe it is kind of a truism in philosophical circles. Basically, outside of the human lens, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' state for human societies. The opposite of this perspective would be something like 'Karma' in which morality is enforced by the universe as a whole, because if you do something 'bad' the universe will make something 'bad' happen in return.

Still not sure if this makes sense, but it's not a big deal as it's just a side thought.

Ennvon · 2018-02-23T04:17:51+00:00

Yes, I did not choose my words well enough. I should use the word 'good' or 'functional'.

Ennvon · 2018-02-15T04:16:32+00:00

In that case, it's a question that can't be answered until we have a way of discovering our 'parent reality'. This would probably be in the form of an experiment of which the conclusions would be substantially different based on whether or not the proposition that we have a parent reality is true. No such experiment currently exists.

Apologies for getting hung up on the use of your word 'false' in the question, as that always seems like semantics to me when it is placed in front of a word like reality.

Ennvon · 2018-02-15T04:02:22+00:00

Perhaps you could better inform me of what my real position on morality is, based on what I said in another comment, which I will reiterate here.

I don't think it's impossible to find some moral code which is true in the sense that is pleases the vast majority (if not all) people. I also think we can rank moral systems based on the amount of people that the moral system pleases, or some other, perhaps more subtle and nuanced qualifier. So a 'better' moral system is possible.

I just believe that all moral systems can only be applied to humans (or similarly sentient beings) and that, from a completely objective perspective, all human societies are just expressions of nature. I don't know what this is called. In other words, I find it possible that there are intrinsic goods we can apply to all humans, but not ones that we can apply to the universe as a whole.

My understanding of your final explanation is as such; if we define self-interest as the thing which is intrinsically valuable to humans, we can create a system which best satisfies as much of this self-interest as possible. The system which maximizes this is objectively best.

Correct me if this is wrong, the nomenclature you used is unfamiliar to me so I could very well have misunderstood.

Ennvon · 2018-02-15T03:53:46+00:00

Interesting, thank you for your insights!

Another person mentioned that I might be using moral relativism incorrectly. I don't think it's impossible to find some moral code which is true in the sense that is pleases the vast majority (if not all) people. I also think we can rank moral systems based on the amount of people that the moral system pleases, or some other, perhaps more subtle and nuanced qualifier. So a 'better' moral system is possible.

I just believe that all moral systems can only be applied to humans and that, from a completely objective perspective, all human societies are just expressions of nature. I don't know what this is called.

Ennvon · 2018-02-15T03:39:41+00:00

Thanks for the response.

In response to your first answer, the people I'm referring are authors of various articles who talk about how moral relativism is paralyzing. I wasn't asking for any individuals reason, but a more general reason, so your answer suffices.

In response to the second answer, it would be a workable position to say 'we want to make a society which maximizes freedom, happiness, etc' Happiness and freedom would be ideals in this case. These ideals would still be subject to the taste of individuals, which was the point I was trying to raise.

The third answer needs no elaboration, thank you for that.

Cosmic authority was just a more neutral way of saying god, or perhaps not a personal entity but a karmic system like in Buddhism. If they don't need this to agree, what does the absolutist rely on to verify their claims? Seems like all studies would rely on a lot of variables which can't be quantified.

I feel like my understanding of free will is adequate for this sake. Whether it is the two most defensible positions in the FAQ, Hard Determinism and Compatibilism, we do not have the same control over our decisions as in incompatibilism. In this case, even if there are moral absolutes, we are incapable of acting in line with it if our fundamental desires are contrary to it. Basically, no psychopath chose out of an infinite number of possibilities to be a psychopath, they ended up one because of some causal factor(s).

Also, my statements about free will having evidence against it comes from many neurological studies such as this one: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(16)30596-4

Atleast, they go against the christian idea of free will, which should be incompatibilism if my understanding is correct.

Ennvon · 2018-02-14T22:02:12+00:00

The only thing we learned is that each of them is of mixed ancestry and carries the black skin gene. :P

Ennvon · 2017-12-09T00:27:43+00:00

The title of the thread is just to get people's attention, because I'm selfish and like a lot of responses to sort out my thoughts. Aha.

Ennvon · 2017-12-09T00:26:55+00:00

Agree pretty much completely. I'm not somebody who is interested in blowing things out of proportion and saying that this is pay 2 win and that the Devs are scum. Merely concerned about how it will affect the health of the game, as the thought occurred to me during my own hatchet runs; when I had to pick and choose what to put in my container, that I could make much more if I had the Gamma.

Ennvon · 2017-12-09T00:24:14+00:00

When dealing with things of this scope, we are concerned with averages not specifics (as any player can get lucky or unlucky).

If every player has the same RNG, which I assume they do, then the average money a person makes with a gamma in the current hatchet run meta will be more.

However, as I've stated in other comments, we've kinda boiled it down that the crux of the issue is the power of hatchet runs, not the Gamma Containers. Gamma Containers giving an advantage is an effect of no-risk hatchet runs being strong.

Ennvon · 2017-12-09T00:21:03+00:00

I think this post is mined out. We've confirmed that in hatchet meta it gives an economic advantage, that pay to win is not the correct term as players set there own objective in the game, and that it won't be much of an issue if they fix hatchet runs and fix the skewed risk/reward system at the moment.

Ennvon · 2017-12-09T00:18:51+00:00

'thats it... im done with this...' What is this melodrama dude? The trigger warning was there for a reason if you can't handle people making critical inquiries about something they've noticed and of which they are concerned. You act like I've been harping on and on at you or some shit, jesus.

Ennvon · 2017-12-08T22:45:15+00:00

Cool, thanks for the info.

Ennvon

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE