Victory March now caps~ (Sad Face Here)

[Andradi]

So you're of the opinion that pumping 100lbs one time is equally as difficult as pumping 100lbs 1000x?

There is effort involved as well as time.

Killing EP mobs takes no effort, only an amount of time.

[Obsidian]

However, I really doubt SE would leave these two ITEMS (there I didn't say weapons) in the dust while the rest of the relics are all increased to 85+. They are most likely just thinking of how they will deal with the trials and how they will upgrade the weapons. It wouldn't make sense to make relic horn inferior to some random +3 horn you can buy off AH/get from easy NM.

So close.

[Yugl]

There is effort involved as well as time.

Killing EP mobs takes no effort, only an amount of time.

If you assess the difficulty of a task using one component, you end up with statements as mentioned earlier. It's a silly to assert that a task is easy because its constituent components are easy.

[Draylo]

So close.

lol woops, they are under the category relic weapons though :O

[Kellanved]

If you assess the difficulty of a task using one component, you end up with statements as mentioned earlier. It's a silly to assert that a task is easy because its constituent components are easy.

Though perhaps not precisely expressed (because communication is a precise art after all), as pointed out by others many times before, they are saying that the task (its parts and the whole) is –simple-. It involves arguably minimal variety and complexity, at least generally for the intended audience, given the options they could have reasonably expected. In short, it is fucking boring. Relatively…

[FailureMidgard]

i.e. too easy. Hence, why it's going to be death by requiem.

If you assess the difficulty of a task using one component, you end up with statements as mentioned earlier. It's a silly to assert that a task is easy because its constituent components are easy.

You're contradicting yourself. Sorry. You say it's "too easy" to require X kills with a song up, then go to on to say it's silly to assert that a task is easy because the components are easy. No idea what you're even trying to argue...Get the killshot on 2000 mobs of X family with any weaponskill while the mob is under the effect of elegy fits perfectly in line with relic trials. Get 2000 killshots on a mob of X family with a shitty 7/tick dot is stupid as fuck and nowhere near in line.

[Yugl]

You're contradicting yourself. Sorry. You say it's "too easy" to require X kills with a song up, then go to on to say it's silly to assert that a task is easy because the components are easy. No idea what you're even trying to argue...Get the killshot on 2000 mobs of X family with any weaponskill while the mob is under the effect of elegy fits perfectly in line with relic trials. Get 2000 killshots on a mob of X family with a shitty 7/tick dot is stupid as fuck and nowhere near in line.

It is not a contradiction and you are incorrect. Is killing the mob with a X debuff on difficult? No. Is killing the mob 2000 difficult? No. Is the amalgamation of these (Killing a mob with X debuff 2000x) difficult? No. On the other hand, I can say that killing a mob with Requiem is difficult and that killing a mob 2000 times is not difficult. Will the amalgamation of these constituents be difficult? Yes. Did I use only ONE component to reach this decision? No. I considered the ease of killing 2000 mobs and weighted it against the difficulty of killing with requiem. Hence, no contradiction at all.

Though perhaps not precisely expressed (because communication is a precise art after all), as pointed out by others many times before, they are saying that the task (its parts and the whole) is –simple-. It involves arguably minimal variety and complexity, at least generally for the intended audience, given the options they could have reasonably expected. In short, it is fucking boring. Relatively…

I would argue that they're saying, based on my previous encounters with these posters, that the requirement per mob is not difficult, but the number of times it has to occur is frustrating (Hence, why he referred to the numbers). Even if that weren't the case, how is boring independent of the concept of difficulty? It is difficult for me to pay attention to bible study because it is boring. Boring can be a factor of difficulty. It does not dictate difficulty, but it may play a relevant role.

Edit: And you both are fuck ups for railing on a joke.

[LinktheDeme]

I don't see why people are bitching and making up dumb stuff. It's not like for Ranger it says must be killed with a ranged attack, for the healing staff it isn't cure X amount of HP (Though you could argue that the pixie portion is curing but that isn't a major component). No one really knows if its going to change but it's doubtful for them to implement a backwards half assed way this late in the games life cycle.



tldr: You're all getting yourselves worked up over speculation and your all going to be wrong in the end

[Jeryhn]

I suspect if any trials are released for Aegis and Gjallarhorn, they will be endlessly more annoying than the current relic trials.

Something like... turn in 100 Relic Shields to the crate in Ru'lude.

[Draylo]

Kill Almathea 100 times after turning in 100 relic shields.

[Kellanved]

I would argue that they're saying, based on my previous encounters with these posters, that the requirement per mob is not difficult, but the number of times it has to occur is frustrating (Hence, why he referred to the numbers). Even if that weren't the case, how is boring independent of the concept of difficulty? It is difficult for me to pay attention to bible study because it is boring. Boring can be a factor of difficulty. It does not dictate difficulty, but it may play a relevant role.

Edit: And you both are fuck ups for railing on a joke.

The point is that the issue is not difficulty. That the concept is subjective under the circumstances is not perceptive. The definition of “difficulty” you’re working with conveniently ignores the assumption underlying the reason why the game (the task) and this forum even exist. It should go without saying that the point of the game is to entertain.

The concept you’re referring to as “difficulty” in a thing meant to entertain is more properly, “Challenging.”

Given that the object is to entertain, tedium by its very definition does not entertain. However, a challenging thing-(to demand effort of a stimulating kind) can be entertaining. It is not unreasonable to find/include an element of challenge in a thing meant to entertain; tedium is repugnant to and independent of that concept.

When the thing becomes boring and therefore less likely to be completed, to say that such tedium contributes to the “challenge” (which is what you’re really referring to by “difficulty” or at least it should be) is, for lack of a better word, retarded.

I interpret failure’s statement on page 2, in response to your “too easy” comment as saying that “The trials are known for their tedium, not challenge”
I don’t really care to “rail” on any joke, but any insinuation that the design of these relic trials are “challenging” though, should be met with ridicule.

[FailureMidgard]

It is not a contradiction and you are incorrect. Is killing the mob with a X debuff on difficult? No. Is killing the mob 2000 difficult? No. Is the amalgamation of these (Killing a mob with X debuff 2000x) difficult? No. On the other hand, I can say that killing a mob with Requiem is difficult and that killing a mob 2000 times is not difficult. Will the amalgamation of these constituents be difficult? Yes. Did I use only ONE component to reach this decision? No. I considered the ease of killing 2000 mobs and weighted it against the difficulty of killing with requiem. Hence, no contradiction at all.



I would argue that they're saying, based on my previous encounters with these posters, that the requirement per mob is not difficult, but the number of times it has to occur is frustrating (Hence, why he referred to the numbers). Even if that weren't the case, how is boring independent of the concept of difficulty? It is difficult for me to pay attention to bible study because it is boring. Boring can be a factor of difficulty. It does not dictate difficulty, but it may play a relevant role.

Edit: And you both are fuck ups for railing on a joke.

Didn't rail on a joke, made a 1-line post that you then responded to (as well as like 4 other posts) defending your "joke". And you most definitely did contradict yourself. If you can't see it, I dunno what to say. Your first post directly stated it was too easy to allow them to kill with a song active, disregarding # of kills or anything else. You then followed this up by saying you can't assess the difficulty of the task by looking at only 1 component. So, you looked at one component and called it too easy, then said you can't look at one component. That is a contradiction my friend.

Also, I agree with Kellanved pretty much.

[Yugl]

The point is that the issue is not difficulty. That the concept is subjective under the circumstances is not perceptive. The definition of “difficulty” you’re working with conveniently ignores the assumption underlying the reason why the game (the task) and this forum even exist. It should go without saying that the point of the game is to entertain.

Oh well, newsflash: Something having a point does not mean it always meets that point.

The concept you’re referring to as “difficulty” in a thing meant to entertain is more properly, “Challenging.”

No, the concept I referred to is difficulty, which by my standards, includes the number of repetitions necessary and tedium. This is something you've conveniently ignored because you're unwilling to admit that without such criteria, we can make statements such as "Lifting 200lbs one time is just as easy as lifting 200lbs two hundred times." Without this criteria, you wouldn't be able to make statements such as "It was difficult to pay attention because she was so boring." Trust me bud, I can play the semantics game.

Given that the object is to entertain, tedium by its very definition does not entertain.

Again, this assumes that the game meets its point.

However, a challenging thing-(to demand effort of a stimulating kind) can be entertaining. It is not unreasonable to find/include an element of challenge in a thing meant to entertain; tedium is repugnant to and independent of that concept.

Perhaps this is a part of the "Relatively..." clause, but do you realize you've made an argument against the very people you're defending? If we accept all your axioms (Not that I would, which is why I can toss out your "entertainment" argument) and argue that:
1) A game's purpose is to be entertaining (Something you're implicitly accepting; otherwise, you cannot make a rebuttal)
2) Because that is the purpose, nothing in a game can be considered difficult, but instead, challenging
3) FFXI meets its purpose
4) FFXI is a game (I'm making this assumption for you, but would disagree?!)
5) Things are either tedious or entertaining, but not both

From this, we can reasonably assert that FFXI cannot be boring. In other words, your own axioms yield an argument against the very people you're defending! In short, FFXI is a game. A game's purpose is to be entertaining. Since FFXI is a game, we may state FFXI's purpose is to be entertaining (The only counterexample being that FFXI's purpose isn't to be entertaining). Since things are either challenging or tedious, but not both, it follows that FFXI cannot be tedious. Hence, you're fucked over the very people you're defending.

When the thing becomes boring and therefore less likely to be completed, to say that such tedium contributes to the “challenge” (which is what you’re really referring to by “difficulty” or at least it should be) is, for lack of a better word, retarded.

I've given concrete examples where my criteria for difficult matches real instances of its use whereas your only argument is that it's retarded. You need a mirror.

I interpret failure’s statement on page 2, in response to your “too easy” comment as saying that “The trials are known for their tedium, not challenge”
I don’t really care to “rail” on any joke, but any insinuation that the design of these relic trials are “challenging” though, should be met with ridicule.

Well, interpretations are like shits. Everyone has one, but they all come out looking different. If they want to back up your interpretation of their loosely stated sentence, that's fine; I don't care.

Didn't rail on a joke, made a 1-line post that you then responded to (as well as like 4 other posts) defending your "joke". And you most definitely did contradict yourself. If you can't see it, I dunno what to say. Your first post directly stated it was too easy to allow them to kill with a song active, disregarding # of kills or anything else.

And this is where you're wrong. You assumed I disregarded the number of kills when that is not the case. In fact, I make it blatantly obvious in my last post that I considered the number of kills for both hypothetical instances.

You then followed this up by saying you can't assess the difficulty of the task by looking at only 1 component. So, you looked at one component and called it too easy, then said you can't look at one component. That is a contradiction my friend.

Now to finish this up: You're wrong because you made an assumption about the method in which I reached my decision. I could follow this up with how amusing I find it that your assessment of my argument is wrong to think I've created a contradiction, but I won't because I actually find it depressing that someone like you could go way off base with this. Perhaps it's because your main field is math or something like that, but you're really abusing the term contradiction in this case and I'll go further as to flesh out, what I think, is the reason for your misinterpretation.

You think I looked at "Kill X number of mobs with Y debuff" as easy because of the "Y debuff" component. That is false. I would say it's easy because the amalgamation of killing X number of mobs and killing the mob with Y debuff is not a difficult task. I change this perspective when "Y debuff" changes to "Kill with requiem". You think that this is contradictory because only one thing changed and the outcome of my opinion changed. However, if we look at what I said, I specifically said it's a problem when you *only* look at one component. Can you see why this is not a contradiction? No? Lets continue. For it to be a contradiction would be to assume that I ignored the number of kills in reaching my outcome. Why? Well lets take another scenario. Lets say the trial said "Kill ONE mob with requiem." If I were contradicting my statement, I would maintain that this is difficult because I would be looking at only one component (The specific stipulation). However, I would actually argue that this is easy. Why? Because I've weighted the difficulty associated with the number and the specific stipulation. Overall, in order to claim contradiction on this point, you would have to make an assumption about how I arrived at my conclusion rather than the outcomes (Easy or difficult). You assumed incorrectly.

Edit: Already anticipating the "Omg, you're ruining my thread even though the only thing that matters in this thread is the OP's post and various points that have already been addressed" posts.

[FailureMidgard]

Now to finish this up: You're wrong because you made an assumption about the method in which I reached my decision. I could follow this up with how amusing I find it that your assessment of my argument is wrong to think I've created a contradiction, but I won't because I actually find it depressing that someone like you could go way off base with this. Perhaps it's because your main field is math or something like that, but you're really abusing the term contradiction in this case and I'll go further as to flesh out, what I think, is the reason for your misinterpretation.

You think I looked at "Kill X number of mobs with Y debuff" as easy because of the "Y debuff" component. That is false. I would say it's easy because the amalgamation of killing X number of mobs and killing the mob with Y debuff is not a difficult task. I change this perspective when "Y debuff" changes to "Kill with requiem". You think that this is contradictory because only one thing changed and the outcome of my opinion changed. However, if we look at what I said, I specifically said it's a problem when you *only* look at one component. Can you see why this is not a contradiction? No? Lets continue. For it to be a contradiction would be to assume that I ignored the number of kills in reaching my outcome. Why? Well lets take another scenario. Lets say the trial said "Kill ONE mob with requiem." If I were contradicting my statement, I would maintain that this is difficult because I would be looking at only one component (The specific stipulation). However, I would actually argue that this is easy. Why? Because I've weighted the difficulty associated with the number and the specific stipulation. Overall, in order to claim contradiction on this point, you would have to make an assumption about how I arrived at my conclusion rather than the outcomes (Easy or difficult). You assumed incorrectly.

1. You flat out did ignore # of kills, otherwise THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE WAY TO SAY THAT KILLING WITH REQUIEM IS HARDER. Example:
Kill 1 blow with requiem.
Kill 7000 mobs while Valor Minuet IV is in effect.
You are assuming the number of kills is similar, otherwise you cannot make a statement about the overall difficulty. Someone else made a reasonable suggestion for what Ghorn trials could be, and you said "it's too easy" blatantly ignoring # of kills. I'm truly sorry you can't see this, but I didn't assume anything at all except:
2. I assumed that ghorn relics would at least be in the same league as DD relic trials, not 10x as time consuming.

Sorry man, I like you, but you're not even remotely near correct here. You replied to someone else saying to get a number of kills (presumably large) with buffs up, then responded it was too easy without seeing the number, -only- because of how hard it is to kill 1. I know you did this based on -only- killing 1 because NOBODY SAID A NUMBER. There is no assuming here, it's just simple logic. I'm not assuming by looking at the post you responded to, seeing no # of kills given, then seeing you say what you did. I'm just fucking reading what's written.

[Kellanved]

stuff

What the fuck is this shit?

You type a lot without saying much of anything. I won’t be addressing your quote train of course. Difficulty for its own sake is not what games are about. It wasn’t what I was talking about; I don’t think it’s what other people were talking about.

If you want to say that any factor that makes the completion of a task less likely under the circumstances contributes to the relative difficulty of the task, knock yourself fucking out. You’re not saying anything that is not blatantly obvious. Your “concrete” example was dismissed because that was not the subject, at least to me.

Reasonable people don’t do things simply because the thing demands effort; they do things because they get something out of that effort. In the instant case, evidently players were meant to get something out of engaging in and completing the task. Challenging as I was using it is difficulty made meaningful. This is the subject.

Most of your quote train statements don’t even necessarily follow. i.e. No, it does not follow from any of my statements that a thing meant to entertain can’t fail and become tedious (the very subject all along), how you got to this conclusion is beyond me.

Do feel free to continue with your fucked up academic exercise detached from any real substance though.

[Yugl]

Most of your quote train statements don’t even necessarily follow. i.e. No, it does not follow from any of my statements that a thing meant to entertain can’t fail and become tedious (the very subject all along), how you got to this conclusion is beyond me.

That's the whole fucking point Kell. You're either left with admitting that FFXI does not meet its purpose and your argument about "challenging" becomes shit (Or some semantic argument that is COMPLETELY tangent to the issue) or you accept that you've argued against the people you have defended. Is what I'm saying obvious? Of course. It's called logical. Logic isn't some bizarre entity that you're trying to make it.

I like how you manage to dodge the question two times because you know it fucks your argument, so I'll pose it again: If difficulty and repetition are completely independent, then you could make statements such as "Lifting 200lbs is just as easy as lifting 200lbs 200x." Would you agree with this statement? If not, then you're admitting that repetition is not completely independent (Though not determinant) of difficulty. If difficulty and boredom of a task are completely independent, you cannot make statements like "It was difficult to pay attention because she was so boring." Would you say such a statement cannot exist truthfully? If not, then difficulty and boredom are not independent.

1. You flat out did ignore # of kills, otherwise THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE WAY TO SAY THAT KILLING WITH REQUIEM IS HARDER.

I'm telling you I didn't ignore the number of kills because I AM THE THE ONE DOING THE REASONING.

Example:
Kill 1 blow with requiem.
Kill 7000 mobs while Valor Minuet IV is in effect.
You are assuming the number of kills is similar, otherwise you cannot make a statement about the overall difficulty.

Why can't I make a statement about the overall difficulty without assuming the number of kills is similar?

Someone else made a reasonable suggestion for what Ghorn trials could be, and you said "it's too easy" blatantly ignoring # of kills.

You cannot make that assertion, especially after I've told you on multiple occasions that you're wrong. Your statement assumes that I would have reached a different conclusion had I taken into account the number of kills. You're wrong.

I'm truly sorry you can't see this, but I didn't assume anything at all except:
2. I assumed that ghorn relics would at least be in the same league as DD relic trials, not 10x as time consuming.

Sorry man, I like you, but you're not even remotely near correct here. You replied to someone else saying to get a number of kills (presumably large) with buffs up, then responded it was too easy without seeing the number, -only- because of how hard it is to kill 1. I know you did this based on -only- killing 1 because NOBODY SAID A NUMBER. There is no assuming here, it's just simple logic. I'm not assuming by looking at the post you responded to, seeing no # of kills given, then seeing you say what you did. I'm just fucking reading what's written

Your assertion is still wrong because you assume that I did not designate a number (or range) of kills to each trial. I assumed 2k kills when I read his proposal and offered my joke proposal.

[Byrthnoth]

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGG I DON'T CAAAARE. STOP ARGUING.

SE chose tedium over all the possible fun and group-oriented or gil-oriented options. They could have had you collect 100 WoE coins for one stage, turn in 300,000 Cruor for another stage, and turn in 100 random quest items (Attohwa Ginsengs/Fernan's Diaries/Faek Gil ) for another stage. Instead they asked you to kill thousands of thousands of monsters.

As long as don't mind going to events with a gimped weapon, there's a chance that some of your thousands of killshots could come during LS events. However, the astronomical quantities sequentially required make completing your whole trial that way entirely infeasible. They're simply asking relic owners to grind mind-numbing quantities of monsters in order to keep their weapons relevant. If possible, I'd recommend botting the whole thing because completing it will do nothing for your development as a player. It improves no skill sets. An entirely worthless endeavor outside of resulting in a stronger weapon.

If you put this to an SE employee and asked them what the fuck they were thinking, they'd probably reply that there's a clear upgrade option that requires new content, team work, and challenges. Everything you could want in your upgrade. It's call the Empyreal weapons. If you don't want to go for them, then you're welcomed to grind your way through 10,000 EP monsters. Sure, 50 ____ items is no walk in the park, but it's hard to argue that getting those 50 items would be less fun and exciting than killing 10,000 EP monsters.

[Yugl]

Oh no Byrth it's even worse than that. The sad part is that we probably agree on whatever you said. The "issue" people have with my joke is (FM) they think I'm contradicting my later comment and (Kellenved) apparently my definition and/or usage of the word "difficult" is incorrect.

[Byrthnoth]

Yes, I agree that the argument is stupid. No one likes the relic magian trials, and people like them even less now that they don't necessarily result in the best of each type of weapon.

If you view the huge quantities of monsters required by the relic trials as SE's disincentive for choosing to keep your old relic relevant instead of doing the new content option (Empyreals), then I don't see that they're necessarily ever going to offer an upgrade quest for Aegis/G-horn. There is no Empyreal shield or Empyreal Horn. They may not feel they need to offer an alternative... Or it may be in the next update, who knows! Aegis was the last relic added anyway, maybe it and G-horn will be the last empyreals added as well. Either way, getting into fights over hypothesized magian requirements is a waste of effort.