I’ve already shown why transmog was not intended to be Need. If you want to reject that as a logical statement, I don’t know what to tell you.
Unless you are a developer on the team, you don’t have anything to back your claim up. Theories and maybes don’t cut it.
1 Like
You: you cannot prove blizzards intent just because they make desirable appearances in LFR and let a lot of players just roll freely on them
Also you:
I know blizzards intent based on this one thing they also did
then you go on to ignore all of
\
1 Like
Perhaps you’re under-exaggerating what over-exaggerating means?
1 Like
I implore you both to look up logical arguments, deduction, and induction.
and I implore you to make a logical one
3 Likes
For A → B to be a true statement, B must be true when A is true. This is a conditional statement
e.g. “If a shape is a square, it will have four equal sides at right angles to each other”.
We can start with “If transmog was intended to be used by a Need roll, a player should be able to roll Need on an item they can equip, and do not own at the same or lower ilevel”
You’re saying A is true.
Yet B is not in the case for a Paladin and an Agi polearm. The item is equippable.
Hence the statement overall is false.
“You may only roll Need on an item if your class can equip it and it is considered an upgrade. Having a certain item equipped or in your inventory will prevent you from rolling Need on that item if it is the same item level or lower.”
Thus, the item is not considered an “upgrade” and Need roll is not available. Hence, via transitive property … “transmog” is not an “upgrade”.
Who says they are not, but it does not fit your view so you are rejecting it?
Really, their logic is “if a paladin can’t roll need on an agility pole arm to get it for mog, then Tmog is not a need in the strictest sense”.
Blizzard likely allows players to roll need on anything they can use because, while ilvl is king in most cases, stats, especially if the ilvl difference is low, can tilt one way or the other on if it is an upgrade and trinkets (not moggable) have power based on their effect.
One can argue that something is an upgrade due to:
- ilvl
- better stats
- higher track
- better effect
Blizzard has no way, outside of ilvl or track, of being able to restrict what gear can be “needed” when it comes to upgrades which means that those looking for better stats or better effect are left out in the cold when it comes to potential upgrades.
It really is a case of Blizzard might not have intended for Need to be used to get mogs, but that is the effect of they system to keep the system “fair” for those that ilvl is not the sole determining factor on upgrades.
Or to sum it up:
Blizzard intended the system to be used to enable people to get upgrades for any reason, but in doing so they had to enable rolling need for any reason as well as they have no way of determining what an upgrade can be for each individual in all cases.
Your entire argument hinges on me agreeing with you that Only numerical upgrades matter and invalidating all others form of gameplay, yea that’s not gonna happen.
We can start with “If transmog was not intended to be used via Need roll, a player should never feel tempted to roll need on an item they can equip based on it’s appearance”
You are saying A is true, yet Blizzard set it up so that B would happen constantly. Hence the overall claim you are making must be false
I also never claimed loot system is perfect, and you have been saying that all along
1 Like
Other players do not owe you anything. It baffles me in this game when player critique others at ever turn and on top of that thing they can decide what those players need to improve or use in the games. If you have problems with the loot write the developers.
2 Likes
I didn’t make the statement above. You did. It makes the entire statement false when A is true and B is not. It doesn’t just make “A” false.
Otherwise I could say:
“If a square has four corners, then pigs can fly”
Well… pigs can’t fly, so I guess squares don’t have four corners based on that logic? Except that’s not how logical statements work. Again, I implore you to look it up. It really does help with a lot of understanding and arguments.
If you have additional criteria that Blizzard has provided to prove intent, to make B make more sense (they’ve never said a player shouldn’t feel tempted to roll Need… that would be nigh impossible), we can use that.
For the record, I’m fine with being wrong. I don’t need anything from LFR. I’m trying to speak to these things objectively.
I’ve never claimed the loot system was perfect. In fact in this very thread I called it bad.
so you arent saying that or agree with A? ok then idk why we are still arguing
nice this is the farthest reaching strawman I’ve ever read. You want to tell me what blizzard’s intent is but want to ignore their actions, unless those actions ,like not allowing a paladin to roll need on agi polearm, align with your argument. Yes you should teach logic and reason for a living.
so now you are saying its ok for blizz to deliberately set tempting traps based on item appearance while simultaneously telling those players that wanting those while the content is current is bad. Did I get that right?
oh
yea I realize it’s always easier to get on a high horse when you have no beef in the game.
That was me agreeing with you, if your reading comprehension glitches out it does make it more difficult to understand basic arguments and logic.
sigh
I didn’t make the statement “If transmog was intended to be used by a Need roll, a player should never feel tempted to roll need on an item they can equip based on it’s appearance”
Nowhere did I say this or imply it. I said it would be impossible to make sure every single player never felt tempted to roll need.
I took your statement “I also never claimed loot system is perfect, and you have been saying that all along” a different way. I thought “that” was referring the claim that the loot system was perfect.
There’s really no need to be snide, though. I’m not trying to belittle you here. I understand some of what I say can come across as condescension, especially in text.
Ok if you are not going to disagree IDK why you are still arguing, you seem to not want to agree or disagree so you don’t have to defend the stance.
If this isn’t what you want to say , then why are you telling me that people rolling needs for mogs is not blizzards intent.
who made this wild claim? I’ve never seen it once posted in this whole thread
you skipped all this btw.
Also-
k
I can really only assume you’re arguing in bad faith here.
I didn’t write the statement that YOU wrote.
I wrote a statement that was based on a pally being able to roll Need on an Agi polearm.
We’ve shown that both statements are false.
I didn’t say it was “ok for blizz to deliberately set tempting traps based on item appearance while simultaneously telling those players that wanting those”. I made no value statement on the loot system beyond saying it wasn’t a good system.
Yeesh. In your statement “I also never claimed loot system is perfect, and you have been saying that all along”, the word “that” is an antecedent which can refer to multiple things. You meant it as:
that = “I also never claimed loot system is perfect”
I read it as
that = “loot system is perfect”
As in, “I also never claimed loot system is perfect, you have been saying the loot system is perfect all along”. That’s how I read it. That was, as you say, not your claimed intent. That’s it. Nothing nefarious here.
Ok, let me address it. This was an example of why A → B, when A is assumed true and B is false, does not imply A is also false. That’s all. There’s no strawman here. I’m not saying that your statement is bad, I’m saying that the implication is incorrect.
What I’ve provided is logical proof that A → B does not hold with the statement I provided, based on what we know Blizzard has said. I’m not ignoring actions that don’t align with my argument. You’re asking for an impossible statement to be true based on human behavior that no person ever will want a specific mog from LFR. Nobody could adhere to that. Ever.
Asking you both to look up and understand logical arguments is not a slight, or at least not intended as one. I cannot interpret things for you though, but it was not meant that way. Believe me, I would rather just be proven wrong and be done with this than to continue in this vein.
And again, regardless, this still changes absolutely nothing. Everyone can and will feel free to roll Need on whatever they can roll Need on, and anyone else can feel free to think they’re jerks for not adhering to the loot guidelines. That’s the extent of this. I think we can be done now.
Do you heroic dungeon the vault for heroic dungeon gives out 441 ilvl do world quest
Again no one owns you anything I shall roll need on gear in LFR when I can since mogs is a form of character progression
2 Likes
Transmog, simple as that
2 Likes
If you’re really banking on a vet/champ drop for gearing you’re just not being very efficient
Consider it a harsh lesson
1 Like
ok, here’s the receipt that you did make the statement, that transmog is not intended to be a need. Now you have to prove it by offering ‘B’ showing me where blizzard has stated this, that they only want players playing certain content if it means they get can upgrades.
If you don’t have that (and I know you don’t since you have admitted a few times now ) we can talk about design decisions in lieu of their statements, proving intent.
So what actions do we have? Here are SOME because I don’t want the post to become longer than it is already going to be:
1.A person can roll need on an item with some restrictions
2.A person does not earn lower ilvl cosmetics by getting higher ones
3.Blizzard created desirable cosmetics at lower ilvls, it wasn’t just that they weren’t trying, but they deliberately made them desirable to increase participation from higher tiered players (THEY HAVE SAID THEY LIKE HEROIC PLAYERS IN LFR - FOR METRICS this should be a huge hint)
4. paladin cannot roll on agi polearm due to imperfect loot design or oversight, related to restrictions from action 1
You want to prove a statement based on blizzards actions and out of everything that is true about their designs, you choose only number 4, the most convenient for your argument.
This is the statement
So now your stance, after convincing yourself the previous statement is false, must also be:
Blizzard didn’t intend for transmog to be need, they don’t want Heroic raiders doing LFR as it is not an appropriate venue for upgrades.
If you cannot justify this statement with their actions, or show me where they have specifically said that content is only for numerical upgrades, then your initial assumption (the first false statement) cannot be unequivocally false, and you’ll need a new statement.
Which could just be Blizz is neutral because,right now, it is in their best interest. Which is why they just let players decide (with some restrictions) if they want to roll on something or not.
you haven’t been saying much of anything to be honest. Other than stating the loot system isn’t good. Which I never disagreed with.
applying a bit of logic you would realize there’s no way I would ever think you are saying the loot system is perfect since you are literally on a forum talking about how it isn’t perfect. But ok sure.
Only you assumed A is true.
Not only do they not adhere to it, they took it and ran in the opposite direction, by making beautiful aesthetically pleasing items that attract anyone playing at any level.
I cannot emphasize what you are saying here enough back at you.
Because you made interpretations on something said in a short blizzard help article explaining a small part of the loot system, and interpreted intent based on nothing except how you, and a nonspecific amount of the community feels.
Great, then I will just continue to think those people are jerks for thinking that participation isn’t enough reason to grant me the right to roll on anything.
The dice is all that matters. It’s what I’ve been saying.
1 Like
It’s true that Blizzard could’ve made an oversight when they didn’t allow for that specific loot roll at the time of creating the rules for Group Loot. They don’t have the greatest track record for that, which would also explain your #3 reason. #1 is literally included in my conditional statement and #2 is irrelevant.
The rest of it has been rehashed already, or is continued misunderstanding, and this particular discussion just isn’t worth continuing.