Description in Sabertooth's ability

Shouldn't the ability read "anywhere from 3 to 6" or "between 2 to 7" rather than "between 3 to 6".
Between 3 to 6 technically means 4 or 5.
@moderators

Comments

Mirage_Turtle

"Between 3 and 6" is only ambiguous in the strictest sense of the words. If someone tells you to pick a number between 1 and 10, most people don't feel that they are limited to numbers 2-9.

Sure, they could put "Between 3 and 6, inclusive" in the description to appease the nitpickers of the world, but I personally don't see a problem with how it's written.

DanveerKarna

Mirage_Turtle wrote: »

"Between 3 and 6" is only ambiguous in the strictest sense of the words. If someone tells you to pick a number between 1 and 10, most people don't feel that they are limited to numbers 2-9.

Sure, they could put "Between 3 and 6, inclusive" in the description to appease the nitpickers of the world, but I personally don't see a problem with how it's written.

That's why I mentioned "anywhere from". But I do agree with nitpickers part lol

BigPoppaCBONE

Mirage_Turtle wrote: »

"Between 3 and 6" is only ambiguous in the strictest sense of the words. If someone tells you to pick a number between 1 and 10, most people don't feel that they are limited to numbers 2-9.

Sure, they could put "Between 3 and 6, inclusive" in the description to appease the nitpickers of the world, but I personally don't see a problem with how it's written.

BETWEEN 3 AND 6 has a very clear and consistent meaning, and that meaning would be 4 or 5. At least 3 and up to 6 would be a better way to put it. Just because you can figure out what they meant by playing the game and looking doesn't make it correct. They should fix errors, especially when they are so easily addressed.

Eb0ny-O-M4w

Between 3 and 6 includes 3 and 6 already ...

CoatHang3r

Between you and me it’s fine. Wait was i just talking to no one?

BigPoppaCBONE

will-o-wisp wrote: »

Between 3 and 6 includes 3 and 6 already ...

It literally doesn’t. English is a mess.

gohard123

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Between you and me it’s fine. Wait was i just talking to no one?

lol,

Eb0ny-O-M4w

BigPoppaCBONE wrote: »

will-o-wisp wrote: »

Between 3 and 6 includes 3 and 6 already ...

It literally doesn’t. English is a mess.

It really does, unless it's specified somewhere than those numkbers aren't included

DNA3000

will-o-wisp wrote: »

BigPoppaCBONE wrote: »

will-o-wisp wrote: »

Between 3 and 6 includes 3 and 6 already ...

It literally doesn’t. English is a mess.

It really does, unless it's specified somewhere than those numkbers aren't included

It literally doesn't. The answer to the question "is three between three and six" is no.

it is a common enough mistake that people tend to look for context. "Pick a number between three and six" is generally interpreted to mean "pick a number within the range of three through six inclusively." On the other hand, "name all the numbers between three and six" is generally interpreted to be "four and five."

In other words, in common English the word "between" doesn't have an unambiguous meaning outside of context. But its literal meaning generally doesn't include the fenceposts.

DNA3000

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Between you and me it’s fine. Wait was i just talking to no one?

Actually, the phrase "between you and me [it's fine]" is meant to convey the notion that given no one else's consideration, the following thing is true. In other words, it is meant to convey the notion that "between you and me" no one else is relevant.

Lormif

will-o-wisp wrote: »

Between 3 and 6 includes 3 and 6 already ...

No it does not. The mathematical representation of this is 3<x<6, not 3<=x<=6. I remember back in college there was a programming class that a had this as a question, so many people were upset they got this wrong.

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Between you and me it’s fine. Wait was i just talking to no one?

There is a difference in the preposition version of the word and an adverb version of it.

Eb0ny-O-M4w

It must be specific to english then, cause translated to other languages does include those number's. I know what you're talking about and still I can say that they are included, simply because how it's worded. It doesn't exclude those numbers, is a close interval

DNA3000

Lormif wrote: »

There is a difference in the preposition version of the word and an adverb version of it.

Specifically in the case of the word "between" it is most commonly used to denote the idea of correspondence or choice when used as a preposition and the idea of interval when used as an adverb.

In other words, "Void's intimidating presence ability chooses between agility debuff, fatigue debuff, and petrify debuff to inflict on the opponent." In this case, "between" means "from among."

"Sabretooth randomly receives between three and six persistent charges." In this case, "between" means "from within the interval of."

Mjolinar

I don’t know what is more annoying: RDT requests, nerf brand new content/champs requests, or this rabbit hole of trying to get every description of every champ or ability that may be a bit ambiguous changed.

Lormif

will-o-wisp wrote: »

It must be specific to english then, cause translated to other languages does include those number's. I know what you're talking about and still I can say that they are included, simply because how it's worded. It doesn't exclude those numbers, is a close interval

When you describe an open interval you say "it is all the numbers BETWEEN x and y", when you describe a closed interval you say "it is all the numbers FROM x to y", or "all numbers in between x and y including x and y". You have to clarify what you mean. I am not sure of the word between in other languages, but could be a translation error when it is converted. I think it is more that it can be confusing because the preposition version of the word is inclusive

BigPoppaCBONE

Mjolinar wrote: »

I don’t know what is more annoying: RDT requests, nerf brand new content/champs requests, or this rabbit hole of trying to get every description of every champ or ability that may be a bit ambiguous changed.

This is something that wouldn’t be a thing for us to request if a proofreader took a look at abilities and edited for clarity and accuracy before they went live.

DNA3000

will-o-wisp wrote: »

It must be specific to english then, cause translated to other languages does include those number's. I know what you're talking about and still I can say that they are included, simply because how it's worded. It doesn't exclude those numbers, is a close interval

That's interesting. I'm not fluent in any language other than English, but I do know that in Japanese there's no direct translation of the word "between" unambiguously. You actually have to know which meaning you're associating with that word before you can translate it, which means it isn't fair to say that the phrase "between three and six" always means inclusive in that language. How you translate it determines whether it actually is inclusive or not. Especially because, and I'm far from an expert, but the notion of "inside" as in within or containing a range is not precisely the same in the two languages in terms of connotation.

CoatHang3r

DNA3000 wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Between you and me it’s fine. Wait was i just talking to no one?

Actually, the phrase "between you and me [it's fine]" is meant to convey the notion that given no one else's consideration, the following thing is true. In other words, it is meant to convey the notion that "between you and me" no one else is relevant.

There is the answer, between is used as a propostion in the decription and not an adverb, easily evidenced by the omission of in as in “in between 3 and 6”.

Lormif

CoatHang3r wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Between you and me it’s fine. Wait was i just talking to no one?

Actually, the phrase "between you and me [it's fine]" is meant to convey the notion that given no one else's consideration, the following thing is true. In other words, it is meant to convey the notion that "between you and me" no one else is relevant.

There is the answer, between is used as a propostion in the decription and not an adverb, easily evidenced by the omission of in as in “in between 3 and 6”.

"receive" is what it is quantifying, which is a verb, making it an adverb.

CoatHang3r

BigPoppaCBONE wrote: »

Mjolinar wrote: »

I don’t know what is more annoying: RDT requests, nerf brand new content/champs requests, or this rabbit hole of trying to get every description of every champ or ability that may be a bit ambiguous changed.

This is something that wouldn’t be a thing for us to request if a proofreader took a look at abilities and edited for clarity and accuracy before they went live.

It’s self evident people understood the meaning as this is the first time Sabretooth’s decriptions have been challenged since he’s been in the contest for a year and crystals for 9 months. It’s pedant outrage culture malarky. Not saying that’s a bad thing cause it is funny/trolly as all hell.

Now if it was 4 or 5 they would’ve wrote that, common sense tells people it’s 3 to 6 charges. It requires a serious/willing reasoning failure to think otherwise and really people are fine without the lowest common denominator being catered to.

DNA3000

Mjolinar wrote: »

I don’t know what is more annoying: RDT requests, nerf brand new content/champs requests, or this rabbit hole of trying to get every description of every champ or ability that may be a bit ambiguous changed.

This may be a small point, but I don't think it is wasted effort to discuss what the text descriptions actually mean, because if the players can't agree on what they mean, asking Kabam to document things "better" is a meaningless exercise.

In context I don't think this description is confusing or misleading, because I think everyone knows that no one says "between three and six" when they mean "four or five."

But that's because the range itself is small enough that it overrides what the meaning of the words actually is. Relying on context to let people guess what the correct meaning is can be a crutch that backfires when the situation isn't so clear. For example, I once saw a game that made this mistake: to generate a percentage (as in, out of 100) it generated a random number from "zero to 100." Is that inclusive or exclusive? The game generated those numbers inclusively. But the correct thing to do is neither of those: that range should be inclusive of zero but exclusive of one. When you generate all numbers from zero through 100 inclusively you're actually generating one hundred and one possibilities. And that's subtly broken.

Precision is a nit-pick, until it is not. We can't ask Kabam to document things better, unless we also mutually agree to only hold them to what the text means in standard English. Not in colloquial conversational English where everyone has a different opinion on the meaning of words. We all know what the Sabretooth text is trying to say, but we should still ask Kabam to correct it to proper English, not because it helps Sabretooth but because doing that consistently eventually helps the stuff that is more ambiguous. Or for that matter, currently unknown.

Lormif

CoatHang3r wrote: »

BigPoppaCBONE wrote: »

Mjolinar wrote: »

I don’t know what is more annoying: RDT requests, nerf brand new content/champs requests, or this rabbit hole of trying to get every description of every champ or ability that may be a bit ambiguous changed.

This is something that wouldn’t be a thing for us to request if a proofreader took a look at abilities and edited for clarity and accuracy before they went live.

It’s self evident people understood the meaning as this is the first time Sabretooth’s decriptions have been challenged since he’s been in the contest for a year and crystals for 9 months. It’s pedant outrage culture malarky. Not saying that’s a bad thing cause it is funny/trolly as all hell.

Now if it was 4 or 5 they would’ve wrote that, common sense tells people it’s 3 to 6 charges. It requires a serious/willing reasoning failure to think otherwise and really people are fine without the lowest common denominator being catered to.

Because it is only 4 numbers it is reasonable to assume that they meant to include all numbers, because otherwise they would have just made a simpler or statement. On the other hand if the number range is larger that assumption goes away.

That being said it is not unreasonable to want something that is literally incorrect to be fixed. This mentality has lead to the colloquial use of the word "literally" of "figuratively" to be added to the dictionary and that just makes harder for us all to communicate clearly.

Lormif

DNA3000 wrote: »

Mjolinar wrote: »

I don’t know what is more annoying: RDT requests, nerf brand new content/champs requests, or this rabbit hole of trying to get every description of every champ or ability that may be a bit ambiguous changed.

This may be a small point, but I don't think it is wasted effort to discuss what the text descriptions actually mean, because if the players can't agree on what they mean, asking Kabam to document things "better" is a meaningless exercise.

In context I don't think this description is confusing or misleading, because I think everyone knows that no one says "between three and six" when they mean "four or five."

But that's because the range itself is small enough that it overrides what the meaning of the words actually is. Relying on context to let people guess what the correct meaning is can be a crutch that backfires when the situation isn't so clear. For example, I once saw a game that made this mistake: to generate a percentage (as in, out of 100) it generated a random number from "zero to 100." Is that inclusive or exclusive? The game generated those numbers inclusively. But the correct thing to do is neither of those: that range should be inclusive of zero but exclusive of one. When you generate all numbers from zero through 100 inclusively you're actually generating one hundred and one possibilities. And that's subtly broken.

Precision is a nit-pick, until it is not. We can't ask Kabam to document things better, unless we also mutually agree to only hold them to what the text means in standard English. Not in colloquial conversational English where everyone has a different opinion on the meaning of words. We all know what the Sabretooth text is trying to say, but we should still ask Kabam to correct it to proper English, not because it helps Sabretooth but because doing that consistently eventually helps the stuff that is more ambiguous. Or for that matter, currently unknown.

dude it is like you and I are on the same wavelength.

CoatHang3r

Lormif wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

BigPoppaCBONE wrote: »

Mjolinar wrote: »

I don’t know what is more annoying: RDT requests, nerf brand new content/champs requests, or this rabbit hole of trying to get every description of every champ or ability that may be a bit ambiguous changed.

This is something that wouldn’t be a thing for us to request if a proofreader took a look at abilities and edited for clarity and accuracy before they went live.

It’s self evident people understood the meaning as this is the first time Sabretooth’s decriptions have been challenged since he’s been in the contest for a year and crystals for 9 months. It’s pedant outrage culture malarky. Not saying that’s a bad thing cause it is funny/trolly as all hell.

Now if it was 4 or 5 they would’ve wrote that, common sense tells people it’s 3 to 6 charges. It requires a serious/willing reasoning failure to think otherwise and really people are fine without the lowest common denominator being catered to.

Because it is only 4 numbers it is reasonable to assume that they meant to include all numbers, because otherwise they would have just made a simpler or statement. On the other hand if the number range is larger that assumption goes away.

That being said it is not unreasonable to want something that is literally incorrect to be fixed. This mentality has lead to the colloquial use of the word "literally" of "figuratively" to be added to the dictionary and that just makes harder for us all to communicate clearly.

Literally the word would need to be inbetween to make the arguments stand up as that is the term used to exclude the end points from a range of options. Between covers the end points in nearly every common usage of the word, hell it’s even in the dictionary description.

CoatHang3r

Lormif wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Between you and me it’s fine. Wait was i just talking to no one?

Actually, the phrase "between you and me [it's fine]" is meant to convey the notion that given no one else's consideration, the following thing is true. In other words, it is meant to convey the notion that "between you and me" no one else is relevant.

There is the answer, between is used as a propostion in the decription and not an adverb, easily evidenced by the omission of in as in “in between 3 and 6”.

"receive" is what it is quantifying, which is a verb, making it an adverb.

Weird because we’re talking about how between is quantifying “3 and 6”.

Lormif

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

BigPoppaCBONE wrote: »

Mjolinar wrote: »

I don’t know what is more annoying: RDT requests, nerf brand new content/champs requests, or this rabbit hole of trying to get every description of every champ or ability that may be a bit ambiguous changed.

This is something that wouldn’t be a thing for us to request if a proofreader took a look at abilities and edited for clarity and accuracy before they went live.

It’s self evident people understood the meaning as this is the first time Sabretooth’s decriptions have been challenged since he’s been in the contest for a year and crystals for 9 months. It’s pedant outrage culture malarky. Not saying that’s a bad thing cause it is funny/trolly as all hell.

Now if it was 4 or 5 they would’ve wrote that, common sense tells people it’s 3 to 6 charges. It requires a serious/willing reasoning failure to think otherwise and really people are fine without the lowest common denominator being catered to.

Because it is only 4 numbers it is reasonable to assume that they meant to include all numbers, because otherwise they would have just made a simpler or statement. On the other hand if the number range is larger that assumption goes away.

That being said it is not unreasonable to want something that is literally incorrect to be fixed. This mentality has lead to the colloquial use of the word "literally" of "figuratively" to be added to the dictionary and that just makes harder for us all to communicate clearly.

Literally the word would need to be inbetween to make the arguments stand up as that is the term used to exclude the end points from a range of options. Between covers the end points in nearly every common usage of the word, hell it’s even in the dictionary description.

It is in the dictionary definition of the word as a PREPOSITION not as an ADVERB...

between
PREPOSITION
1 At, into, or across the space separating (two objects or regions)

ADVERB
1 In or along the space separating two objects or regions.

Preposition, inclusive, adverb exclusive

Lormif

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

Between you and me it’s fine. Wait was i just talking to no one?

Actually, the phrase "between you and me [it's fine]" is meant to convey the notion that given no one else's consideration, the following thing is true. In other words, it is meant to convey the notion that "between you and me" no one else is relevant.

There is the answer, between is used as a propostion in the decription and not an adverb, easily evidenced by the omission of in as in “in between 3 and 6”.

"receive" is what it is quantifying, which is a verb, making it an adverb.

Weird because we’re talking about how between is quantifying “3 and 6”.

That is the quantification, it is not a noun or a pronoun, which is what a preposition expresses the relationship to.

CoatHang3r

So if a train runs between New York and Maine then it doesn’t include New York or Maine, got it, wait...

Marri_2

will-o-wisp wrote: »

It must be specific to english then, cause translated to other languages does include those number's. I know what you're talking about and still I can say that they are included, simply because how it's worded. It doesn't exclude those numbers, is a close interval

Nope, dunno what language you speak but I speak 4 languages and it's the same in all 4...does not include the outer limits. English, Dutch, German, French...so even languages from different families treat this the same.

I feel this is one of the word crime in the category:

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc

Lormif

CoatHang3r wrote: »

So if a train runs between New York and Maine then it doesn’t include New York or Maine, got it, wait...

That is a preposition, it describes a relationship between 2 nouns or pronouns, therefore it is inclusive.