Quote from GentlemanGustaf »
sure, we can stick to just deduction, but why, when induction has given us science?
And once we're allowing induction, induction of other people's induction seems quite reasonable, too.
Science doesn't allow ad hominem attacks either, double-blind peer-reviewed studies being the gold standard. You don't trust a study just because a Harvard professor published it. You see how well the study was designed and how frequently the results have been replicated.
Quote from GentlemanGustaf »
truth is not a probability, no, but given that we have limited time to pursue everything, we use rubrics like this all of the time to determine our beliefs, and it is efficient.
Absolutely -- except your beliefs have no bearing on me. Dismissing someone's argument because you ascribe little authority to them is useful for you because it reduces how much time you have to use to determine your own working understanding of the topic. But you can't translate that to a rational argument with someone else any more than you can force them to hold the same opinions on divinity as you. By definition, you can't use reason to convince me of your beliefs because beliefs are personal premises.
So sure, dismiss a hashinshin detractor because s/he's a bad player. It reduces the number of comments you need to reply to. But you can't bring that shortcut into a logical argument because it's just a personal shortcut.
Quote from pumis
He shouldn't trust his opinion. In fact you shouldn't trust anyone's opinion. Being skeptic is healthy choice. You should instead focus on how legit is the argument instead of how legit is the person.
I was going to say exactly this.
It is never, ever, ever valid to attack the arguer in order to undermine their argument. I don't care if your opposition is trying to explain that the lunar landing was fake even though they've spent their whole life living with wolves in the forest and generally have the brainpower of a potato. If they're wrong, their argument will be flawed (invalid) or based on demonstrably false premises (unsound). The argument would be wrong even if a college professor were delivering it. The mouth from which it happened to spring is totally and utterly irrelevant.
It's a useful timesaver to ascribe a truth value to the arguments of authorities so you don't have to spend time fact-checking everything but you're basically just choosing to believe in them and beliefs such as that cannot be compelled upon your opposition It's strictly illogical to make any use of authorities whatsoever in any sort of formal argument because those authorities can always be wrong, or can even have other equally-auspicious authorities disagree with them. In this case, I very much doubt every single player at or above hashinshin's level agrees with him on every point; even if he does ultimately happen to always be right, it's unlikely that the playerbase would have a homogeneous consensus. So if we are to make the syllogism "hashinshin is a good player, therefore everything he says about LoL is true," we'd run into logical contradictions every time some other good player disagreed with him, thus disproving the syllogism. We could modify the syllogism to "hashinshin is a good player, therefore everything he says about LoL is more likely to be true," but then it becomes useless as a debating tool because truth is not a probability.
Hence, attack the arguments, not the arguer.
Yet M5's Alex Ich brought out AP Yi against Curse last year at IPL5 (and got a pentakill) and AP Tryndamere was hit by a wave of nerfs specifically because a number of pros started playing him in LCS, Voyboy being one of the more notable AP Trynd players.
Ok that's not a fair assessment of his point. He specifically said he went into this article excited to see hashinshin say something positive for once.
There's something to be said for keeping an eye on the positives in one's evaluations. It helps give perspective to the reader. It can be difficult to see how wrong something is without seeing how right other things are. An argument could be made that that's what the other columnists do, but I think it would definitely help hashinshin's points if he didn't constantly rage at everything. Like the boy who cried wolf, it's hard to take him seriously when EVERYTHING IS THE WORST THING EVER.
This is exactly my thoughts on it, and precisely why I go Chalice -> Deathcap -> Grail. CDR doesn't actually mean much to Lux during laning. Even 40% isn't going to give her another spell before her opponent has the chance to disengage. She needs to be able to kill her opponent from 60% in one rotation or they'll only be forced out of lane and the Grail by itself doesn't give her enough AP to do that. Maybe that's fine for professionals who can use that opportunity to apply pressure elsewhere but in solo queue, I'd rather focus on getting kills early.
Best hashinshin article NA. :D
You can always choose not to play a champion but you can't always choose not to play against a champion. If a complicated champion is balanced, then the people who like him can play him and have fun without ruining the game for everyone else. If a complicated champion is overpowered, then those with the skill to play him well will bulldoze everyone else and that's simply not fair.
Let's say Ziggs is balanced. I like playing Ziggs. I can play Ziggs, maybe do well with him or maybe not, but either way I'm not abusing my opponents. Professionals probably won't play him and that's sad because I'd like to see him in the spotlight, but whatever, at least he's not ruining games. Now let's say Ziggs gets an extra 2.0 added to all his ratios, something crazy. Suddenly he'd see professional play but only because he's ripping through everyone he faces. In Normal solo queue games, however, teams would start just leaving if they saw Ziggs pop up on the enemy team. He'd be perma-banned by the team with second pick in ranked and everyone who neglected to ban him would probably just lose. Now landing Bouncing Bombs is extremely rewarding for me, but the game is in shambles.
Even though it means they won't see competitive play outside of novel strategies, complicated champions still need to be balanced against simpler champions. Ideally they would bring something to the table that, while balanced, can't be easily duplicated but it's just impractical to decree that every champion must have an invaluable unique edge. Each should fill a unique niche, but sometimes those niches are just going to be too specific for most teams and that's fine.
League of Legends is still a game, though. Most people who play it play for fun. Morgana's a dead-easy laner but sometimes I want to play Orianna because that's the kind of fun I feel like having that game. Yeah you have to work harder for a similar benefit, but that's ok because I want the increased difficulty. There's a reason most video games have multiple difficulty settings: sometimes, you just want a challenge. And that's fine.
I'm personally a big fan of Support Ashe. Passive gives her support-style poke, Q is on-demand CC, W is an AoE slow, E is a free CV, and her ult is kinda like a Sona ult except global and potentially lasts longer. She even gets more out of support items like Zeke's Herald than most supports.
