**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options

Planetary Boost and more...

13»

Comments

  • Options
    DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,687 Guardian
    IsItthough said:

    DNA3000 said:

    IsItthough said:

    The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.

    Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.

    In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.

    The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
    You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
    The fact is, you're the one trying to spin something. You're trying to claim that because the thing wasn't "broken" it didn't need to be "fixed" but your definition of broken is so completely worthless, almost all things in existence that need fixing aren't broken by your definition. Destroying the meaningfulness of your own argument to make a worthless point is the very definition of a self-annihilating position.
  • Options
    IsItthoughIsItthough Posts: 254 ★★
    DNA3000 said:

    IsItthough said:

    DNA3000 said:

    IsItthough said:

    The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.

    Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.

    In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.

    The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
    You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
    The fact is, you're the one trying to spin something. You're trying to claim that because the thing wasn't "broken" it didn't need to be "fixed" but your definition of broken is so completely worthless, almost all things in existence that need fixing aren't broken by your definition. Destroying the meaningfulness of your own argument to make a worthless point is the very definition of a self-annihilating position.
    I never said it didn't need fixed, I simply said it was "fitting" and that you shouldn't call it "broken" because it was misleading. But you seem to prefer long winded statements to try and prove a point. Please carry on as the only thing really broken here is my hope that you may see anyone's point but your own!
  • Options
    DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,687 Guardian
    IsItthough said:

    DNA3000 said:

    IsItthough said:

    DNA3000 said:

    IsItthough said:

    The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.

    Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.

    In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.

    The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
    You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
    The fact is, you're the one trying to spin something. You're trying to claim that because the thing wasn't "broken" it didn't need to be "fixed" but your definition of broken is so completely worthless, almost all things in existence that need fixing aren't broken by your definition. Destroying the meaningfulness of your own argument to make a worthless point is the very definition of a self-annihilating position.
    I never said it didn't need fixed, I simply said it was "fitting" and that you shouldn't call it "broken" because it was misleading. But you seem to prefer long winded statements to try and prove a point. Please carry on as the only thing really broken here is my hope that you may see anyone's point but your own!
    I see lots of people's point but my own. In fact many people have changed my mind about different topics. But as this requires having an actual consistent viewpoint and making a logical argument backed up by facts and reasoning, you probably never noticed because it was too much words for you.
  • Options
    IsItthoughIsItthough Posts: 254 ★★
    DNA3000 said:

    IsItthough said:

    DNA3000 said:

    IsItthough said:

    DNA3000 said:

    IsItthough said:

    The boost may have been Overpowering, but with the health pools and attack it was fitting. To say it was broken would imply it wasn't working right. It was working exactly as it was written.

    Most people use the word "broken" to mean one of three things: one: the implementation isn't working properly; two: the implementation does not match the design intent,; or three: the design itself is flawed given the design requirements.

    In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.

    The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.
    You can spin it all you want but the fact is, it was written as 90%. Not a typo of 22 or some other random prime number you give. It worked exactly like it was designed and intended. They intended it to provide "X" amount of armor reduction and damage, based on "X" amount of percentage. The problem was it was more damage than they wanted. So still not broken, no matter how you try to spin it.
    The fact is, you're the one trying to spin something. You're trying to claim that because the thing wasn't "broken" it didn't need to be "fixed" but your definition of broken is so completely worthless, almost all things in existence that need fixing aren't broken by your definition. Destroying the meaningfulness of your own argument to make a worthless point is the very definition of a self-annihilating position.
    I never said it didn't need fixed, I simply said it was "fitting" and that you shouldn't call it "broken" because it was misleading. But you seem to prefer long winded statements to try and prove a point. Please carry on as the only thing really broken here is my hope that you may see anyone's point but your own!
    I see lots of people's point but my own. In fact many people have changed my mind about different topics. But as this requires having an actual consistent viewpoint and making a logical argument backed up by facts and reasoning, you probably never noticed because it was too much words for you.
    Not single post from you on this thread has any facts. But you probably didn’t notice as you were to busy typing an thesis!
Sign In or Register to comment.