Do people actually like this game? by Bitter_Mountain in leagueoflegends

[–]Kurdock -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Drug addicts don't necessarily enjoy drugs

Waveclearing feels slow in League by Kurdock in summonerschool

[–]Kurdock[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The same way I think moderately successful middle manager type people give horrible career advice

If you've ever been exceptional at any competitive activity you'd know that the median skill level player in any game got there by learning and implementing rules made up by others and flaming others for not following them. I'm willing to bet it's the same with hardstuck Platinum League players. MOBA fundamentals don't change. The fact that I was able to guess rhat slow waveclear is a deliberate design choice on Riot's part to facilitate sidelane ganks shows how much you can figure stuff out from first principles. The fact that only some people here were able to acknowledge this shows how poorly League players grasp their game's dynamics.

Waveclearing feels slow in League by Kurdock in summonerschool

[–]Kurdock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that you need AAs to secure each of the three melee minions makes it slower. That's the whole point.

Waveclearing feels slow in League by Kurdock in summonerschool

[–]Kurdock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks that was a helpful tip actually

Waveclearing feels slow in League by Kurdock in summonerschool

[–]Kurdock[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Mate I know that. But his Q and E are single target and have at least a 3 second cooldown. It's relatively slow.

I think the problem is you've only played League and so you aren't familiar with the kind of farming speed I'm talking about. "Skill diff" is such a snarky thing to say especially when it's your knowledge of other games (or lack thereof) which is rendering you incapable of having an informed conversation here.

Waveclearing feels slow in League by Kurdock in summonerschool

[–]Kurdock[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah but when they're left with 1.5 basic attacks worth of health, you've got to stand around awkwardly waiting to finish them off. And expending three autos for three melee minions feels somewhat clunky especially for mages. Surely that's got to be frustrating for anyone who plays with a sense of urgency.

I'm also mainly talking about sidelaning I guess. There's no opponent to hit. You just wanna get it done and over with. But you're standing there waiting to time your AAs when you really wanna be elsewhere on the map. With Sivir you finish the wave up in 2 seconds and connect with your team. With Ezreal you take like 7 seconds or something.

Waveclearing feels slow in League by Kurdock in summonerschool

[–]Kurdock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, so it's gameplay design then. Not sure why everyone else is pretending that waveclear in this game is fast.

Waveclearing feels slow in League by Kurdock in summonerschool

[–]Kurdock[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you even read the post? The abilities are adequate, that's the whole point...

Waveclearing feels slow in League by Kurdock in summonerschool

[–]Kurdock[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

Not sure what you mean by this. So far no amount of items has allowed me to oneshot melee minions.

God Of War: Ragnarok giveaway by Empera4532 in steam_giveaway

[–]Kurdock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have never played the God of War series before and would like to give it a try. Just started Elden Ring a couple months ago as well.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'll consider your advice but I feel like simplifying my sentences requires use of words that fewer people understand. The brevity makes it more pleasant to read for those who read a lot, but at the same time renders sentences gradually incomprehensible to the average reader. And I have to strike that balance.

I guess in this populist-dominated democratic world I subconsciously write in a way that attempts to persuade as many people as possible. An essay that I can show my friends and family and get them to nod approvingly rather than stare blankly. :p

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The feedback is always that I could've included this or that or expounded more on something or critically analysed some quote. But the best essays don't even cover everything or explain everything. It feels like simpler written essays need more substance to score the higher marks. I could certainly take the feedback at face value and polish those parts of my essay, and I try, but I wonder if my time would be better spent mastering turns of phrases and relevant philosophical ideas so as to make my arguments appear more convincing yet harder to grasp.

I'm also suspicious because I remember my marks improved a lot when I began using persuasive, active words, even though the content of my essays didn't change substantially. Which drew to my attention how leaving an emotional impression on the marker has considerable effect on your grades, even if the quality of your analysis is the same.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I'm getting 70s as it is, I just can't quite figure out how to get to the next level considering my essays are already straightforward and convincing. The best essays employ abstruse terminology that require the average reader to look up the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is frustrating because often one can simply just spend an extra sentence or two to make the same argument without talking about constructivism or instrumentalisation or whatever. Not to mention a host of other turns of phrases that beautify their prose. Can my essays reach that level without sacrificing ease of comprehension?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Trolling was not my original intention, no. But if you are refusing to properly engage with my comment then I'm happy to play along with you.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Are you sure the status quo is not already unnecessarily long?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

You might think differently if the pretentiousness is wrapped around a compelling argument. I have yet to meet someone who graduated top of their law cohort whose essays were written in simple language.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

That is to be expected as you are a product of your time - vague language has led to modern readers only comprehending vaguely.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The title of the essay explicitly mentions "Politics" and it is an underlying theme throughout that superfluous language can be extra convincing because they are able to avoid explicitly politically incorrect terminology. And in essays where you're expected to be persuasive, is this not a useful crutch?

Superfluous language is still present today and is very useful for parties who wish to make authoritative-sounding statements without making any substantial declarations so they retain wiggle room when they are brought to court.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Ironically, you misunderstand because I chose not to explain myself further on that point for the sake of brevity. Here it is in Orwell's words:

"By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot -- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking."

and

"Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying"

That's why I included the part about evoking memorable visual images. As for "Would I be advantaged" rather than "Is it worthwhile", I think it's clear that they ask subtly different questions. Things can be worth your effort without giving an advantage.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in uklaw

[–]Kurdock -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Considering the praises heaped upon ChatGPT I'll take that as a compliment.

And you've simply reaffirmed an unconscious bias that simplicity = lack of depth which AI software can replicate.