New update out today or tomorrow?

Pancake_Face

Title says it all

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

Thicco_Mode

The new release drops tomorrow!
Why is everyone disagreeing with the administrator he knows more than any of us players
then why does he think cyclops is effective
Because he knew what was coming in the new AQ season and that cyclops would rock it

wait what if he was a time traveller and accidentally gave us data from a few years in the future

J0eySn0w

Isn't it a day late though?
Or it's still 1 day early... I know that Monday is the usual day, but the goal is always to get it out by Wednesday. We usually aim for Monday, but there can be other circumstances at play that delay the release, some in our control, and some not.

Awesome! I think this one is within control but just to make a few tweaks to Hell’s Kitchen buff:
- DAAR is being replaced with AAR to cover both defensive and offensive ability accuracy since he doesn’t have evade
- His thorns like damage counter now covers both MBoy and SApprentice mode in his sig ability, thus, justifying the max sig. Cos aside shrugging non-damaging debuff in MB mode he has no utility. You have to somehow manage 3 full combos (15hits) without dying to access both DAAR and Thorns sig ability.
- Making him a bit suicide friendly, be more generous and give him higher WP heal. 60% reduction is steep, 30/40 % reduction imo will be great.

I know this is all in the air, but just saying 😉

TheHoodedDormammu

Isn't it a day late though?
Or it's still 1 day early... I know that Monday is the usual day, but the goal is always to get it out by Wednesday. We usually aim for Monday, but there can be other circumstances at play that delay the release, some in our control, and some not.

Awesome! I think this one is within control but just to make a few tweaks to Hell’s Kitchen buff:
- DAAR is being replaced with AAR to cover both defensive and offensive ability accuracy since he doesn’t have evade
- His thorns like damage counter now covers both MBoy and SApprentice mode in his sig ability, thus, justifying the max sig. Cos aside shrugging non-damaging debuff in MB mode he has no utility. You have to somehow manage 3 full combos (15hits) without dying to access both DAAR and Thorns sig ability.
- Making him a bit suicide friendly, be more generous and give him higher WP heal. 60% reduction is steep, 30/40 % reduction imo will be great.

I know this is all in the air, but just saying 😉

None of this is game breaking, and it will make him a more valuable champ overall. Hope this happens tomorrow

Rebark

Thursday the first after that Monday next time.

Thursday the first after that Monday next time is the new early june

Apocalypse189

The new release drops tomorrow!
Why is everyone disagreeing with the administrator he knows more than any of us players
then why does he think cyclops is effective
Because he knew what was coming in the new AQ season and that cyclops would rock it
wait what if he was a time traveller and accidentally gave us data from a few years in the future

In that case, the present or past would be different

Time travel has very strict rules

Its like stepping on a butterfly and changing the whole history of the world.

Manav_preet0808

The new release drops tomorrow!
Why is everyone disagreeing with the administrator he knows more than any of us players
then why does he think cyclops is effective
Because he knew what was coming in the new AQ season and that cyclops would rock it
wait what if he was a time traveller and accidentally gave us data from a few years in the future
In that case, the present or past would be different

Time travel has very strict rules

Its like stepping on a butterfly and changing the whole history of the world.

U mean the butterfly effect

tkhan08

Update should be out by now, no?

Crcrcrc

The new release drops tomorrow!
Why is everyone disagreeing with the administrator he knows more than any of us players
then why does he think cyclops is effective
Because he knew what was coming in the new AQ season and that cyclops would rock it
wait what if he was a time traveller and accidentally gave us data from a few years in the future
In that case, the present or past would be different

Time travel has very strict rules

Its like stepping on a butterfly and changing the whole history of the world.

No because when you time travel to the past, it was already set in time. You wouldn't have time traveled if you hadn't appeared in the past, because that led up to you time traveling. You cannot alter a timeline.

Scrubkiller_1

@Crcrcrc Depends on how you view time, particularly with respect to an A-theory of time vs. a B-theory of time. Ain't metaphysics fun? Point being, depends on the theory, lol.

Silver_Goose

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/amp34146674/paradox-free-time-travel-is-possible/

I’m with @Crcrcrc on this one

Crcrcrc

@Crcrcrc Depends on how you view time, particularly with respect to an A-theory of time vs. a B-theory of time. Ain't metaphysics fun? Point being, depends on the theory, lol.

If you think about it, if time travel is eventually possible in the future, someone would have already come back and caused a paradox. That would have ended the universe ages ago unless timelines are unalterable.

Apocalypse189

Just watch Back to the Future and Doctor Who
Theyll explain it more

Crcrcrc

Just watch Back to the Future and Doctor Who
Theyll explain it more

Back to the Future is awesome, but a major paradox.

Scrubkiller_1

@Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).

Crcrcrc

@Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).

I suppose, but that still comes back to my original question: If time traveling and altering timelines is theoretically possible, why haven't we been wiped out by a paradox caused by someone in the future going to the past and causing it?

Moot4Life

@Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).
I suppose, but that still comes back to my original question: If time traveling and altering timelines is theoretically possible, why haven't we been wiped out by a paradox caused by someone in the future going to the past and causing it?

because someone finds a way to fix it. they always do.

Crcrcrc

@Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).
I suppose, but that still comes back to my original question: If time traveling and altering timelines is theoretically possible, why haven't we been wiped out by a paradox caused by someone in the future going to the past and causing it?
because someone finds a way to fix it. they always do.

Technically you would be wiped out immediately with no time at all to fix it.

Furious_Fighter1

Me coming to this post just to check if update is out yet and seeing these time travel comments:

Scrubkiller_1

@Crcrcrc That's what I was attempting to respond to. The assumption that someone COULD have done that in the future requires the primary assumption that the future has already occurred, or more clearly put, that the B-theory of time is true. Under this theory you could sort of view time in a Boethian manner where time is like a line that is traversed and each event is as real as any other, although this is just how I picture it in my head from the little knowledge I have on the subject. It's not like such an assumption is axiomatic or anything and can often have deterministic problems, not that I'm saying determinism isn't true per say, I have my own reservations with it though.

Sarvanga1_

Me coming to this post just to check if update is out yet and seeing these time travel comments:

Me too lol

Moot4Life

@Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).
I suppose, but that still comes back to my original question: If time traveling and altering timelines is theoretically possible, why haven't we been wiped out by a paradox caused by someone in the future going to the past and causing it?
because someone finds a way to fix it. they always do.
Technically you would be wiped out immediately with no time at all to fix it.

but you can use the time machine to travel back

unknown

This content has been removed.

Crcrcrc

@Crcrcrc That's what I was attempting to respond to. The assumption that someone COULD have done that in the future requires the primary assumption that the future has already occurred, or more clearly put, that the B-theory of time is true. Under this theory you could sort of view time in a Boethian manner where time is like a line that is traversed and each event is as real as any other, although this is just how I picture it in my head from the little knowledge I have on the subject. It's not like such an assumption is axiomatic or anything and can often have deterministic problems, not that I'm saying determinism isn't true per say, I have my own reservations with it though.

Ok that is a good point. My thought is that either the future is set in a specific way, or our timeline will be altered repeatedly in the future when time travel is possible and the future becomes real events in time.

Scrubkiller_1

@Long_haired_freak It isn't quite that simple, that paradox actually has a number of solutions depending upon your metaphysical theory of time. For example, split timelines creating distinct universes.

Moot4Life

Time travel is theoretically impossible by Grand Father paradox. Suppose you build a time machine, go back in time and accidentally kill one of your ancestor like your grand father. By that logic, your father was never born and you cease to exist. So by that logic you cannot time travel if you never existed.

actually in that paradox since there an infinite number of possibilities, another family forms and creates you

Scrubkiller_1

@Crcrcrc Time theories are always odd because they affect your theory of free will, time travel, ethics (somewhat), and other fun stuff. It's a reasonable enough viewpoint, just have to substantiate it to have a fairly justified view I'd think. Ideally I'd like to say we have free will, but the fact that we consciously experience reality AS IF we have free will is enough of an empirical argument to console me up until some other theory is proven.

JueVioleGrace

unknown

This content has been removed.

Scrubkiller_1

Actually, in scientific academia, multiverse theories and parallel universes are often taken to be very serious theories. For example, I believe Sean Carroll has written several books on a theory he was involved in creating (sorry, rough memory) that was relatively cogent and coherent and it involved some sort of multiverse theory. Theories are really just that, theories. Their strength tends to depend upon a few things, i.e. apriori probability, probability based on number of assumptions (Occam's razor is good here), most importantly predictive success, etc. It's not fiction at all, they're all theories, including whatever view you take of time. The strength of your own view is somewhat proportionate to the justification you have for it, although I don't think epistemology is that simple given the flaws of classical foundationalism. Sorry, real bad at summarizing and simplifying, no desire to use such esoteric language.