194 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Red Viking wrote...
You can't because you're on a timer.  By the time you get to the Conduit, you'll only have a few seconds left.  If you stop to kill the geth, you'll run out of time.

Apparently, it IS possible to kill the Conduit geth by using a very cheap trick. Here, from the ME Wiki:

"Once the cutscene ends, you have 40 seconds to make it to the Conduit in
time. It's designed to be a little too close for comfort, so you really
have no time to fight - just blitz straight past the Geth Colossi on
guard as fast as you can. (Alternatively if you want to grab some extra
XP, you can stop the mako at the top of the path before heading down the
decline and before the cutscene. From here you can pop off two of the
Geth Colossus.) (Note that in the PC version, no matter how slowly your
computer runs the game, the timer is real time. You may want to lower
graphics settings before this to ensure you aren't timed out for frame
rate issues.)" 

LINK 

[Crias]

Trust me I'm a recent purchaser/player, and just made it to 60... I don't think I'm capable of forgetting or ignoring the ridiculousness of that damn gap haha



Now I just have to clean up the easy ally and skill-use achievements.

[Karstedt]

@Crias...

Its always nice when someone gets the full meaning of my comparisons. I make ones like the car example all the time IRL, and 95% of people manage to miss the full implications of such a comparison. But they readily latch on to the extreme circumsatances and write it off as "nothing like"
the situation at hand.

That said, I did enjoy the analysis Karstedt. Would you be offended if I backed it up for future reference?

Go ahead. Though I don't know what use it would be as reference. If you knw ho to work PHP, you can get a tool that will export the 2da's with all that data and a whole lot more HERE. He used to have the tables already exported in html format, but they don't appear to be there anymore.

[Phaelducan]

By that same logic, you are saying it's ok to ignore me stating that it's a waste of time, inefficient, and extremely difficult, and if it was even possible at all it would take extraordinary resource management skills to hit 60..... because OMG HE SAID YOU CAN HIT 60 IN ONE PLAYTHROUGH??!?!!?



No double standards.



Beyond that, I never said it would be easy to hit 60. I never suggested anything of the sort, I said I thought it was theoretically possible to hit 60 if one was able to get every single experience point available in the game combined with no wasted exp from leveling.



I DID claim that it would be easy to hit 59, based on feeling of the pace I was leveling and what I had left on the table in terms of things undone. Thanks to the numbers Karstedt provided, he showed that it would still be a stretch to hit 59, and that 60 was almost certainly unattainable.



I don't mind being referenced in an agreement with a post in direct conflict with mine, but I would ask that said reference is at least correct in terms of what we were arguing about.



The car example is still absurd. "If you can hold you breath for 2 minutes, go ahead and dive down deep enough so that you could get back up in 2minutes and 6 seconds." Is NOT the same as "I might be able to level up to 60 in ME if I had a perfect run with no missed exp in the whole game."



That's comparing apples to hand grenades. Implying logic in a equation format because of raw percentages is a clear thinking error. The situations aren't equal, not even close.



What's next? "That guy clipped my tree branches off.... 5% of that value is.... equal to what he payed for his dog. I'm going to go kill it."



Absurd.

[Karstedt]

Phaelducan wrote...

The car example is still absurd. "If you can hold you breath for 2 minutes, go ahead and dive down deep enough so that you could get back up in 2minutes and 6 seconds." Is NOT the same as "I might be able to level up to 60 in ME if I had a perfect run with no missed exp in the whole game."

Your comparison example about diving is not the same as the car example, so I can see why you would think that's absurd. The car example utilized every factor of your original claims regarding how far you made it, the ease of which you think you could have made the next goal, and the likelyhood of reaching beyond thaat, with only the addition of a known limitation inserted in the car example. This makes it a parellel even with the limitation added because your original claim was ignoring the 2 years of avid, borderline masochisitic, players that have tried and failed and crunched numbers for hours on end trying to find the limits. I simply uped the stakes on the comparison from wasting 40 hours of your life trying to achieve the impossible, to dying in a horrible wreck trying to achieve the impossible. Consequences do not make the comparisons different, they show just how absurd the more trival one is by extrapolating the same perspective to a riskier situation.

To alter your diving example to something more comparative: Let's say the best divers in the world can hold their breath for 3 minuntes and records show that lack of breathing for 3:10 causes loss of conciousness (yes they can do more IRL, but this is simply an example). Additionally, the record for longest dive is 3:09. This data is established by thousands of divers from all over the world during a 2 year period of testing. Now, you have held your breath for 3:07 and didn't feel like you were really pushing yourself. So you set out on 3:11 dive confidant that you can make it. You pass out before getting back to the surface, and the onlookers let your drown less than 6 inches from air. The folly here is confidance in spite of established data.

And to differentiate from another comparison that some might feel is similar, this isn't the same as calling it folly for thinking the world is round and risking your life sailing beyond the horizon back when people believed it was flat. The idea of a flat world was in itself mere speculation/superstition.

The data established for ME1 is that a grulingly anal attempt to maximize xp will get you to level 58. I invite anyone who want to try to hit 59 (or worse 60) to do so since the consequences are minimal. But the idea that it's possible (outside the use of glitches or cheats) though is just silly. If the consequence of trying and failing were a broken hand, that would become far more apparent but no more or less absurd; because after 5 or 10 overconfidant people had their hands broken for making outlandish claims and attempts, they would pay a little closer attention to the data availible.... well, tha last bit is just speculation and wishful thinking on my part. It's probbaly more likely that about 70% of people (at least where I live) would have gimpy hands.

When 7 of 10 people tell you you'll be ok if you stick your hand in the hand crusher, and all 7 of them have crushed hands but claim its just because they made a slight error, I have high hopes that people will make the right decision. This is whole different conversation though and getting more and more abstract though...

[Crias]

Again, Phael, you miss the point.

The percentages are relevant for one simple reason: you had no supporting evidence except "it feels right". Against that kind of reasoning, even the tiniest logical evidence is sufficient to disprove, which is all my numbers were.

Your statement about dead dogs and tree-branches was completely nonsensical - no doubt intentionally. My statement, on the other hand, was completely reasonable: you claim you missed only a relatively small handful of enemies, yet you claimed missing 0 enemies should make 60 possible.

It is fact that you needed 30% more experience than you had, but had missed far less than 30% of the game. Impossibility of 60 based on that is a very reasonable assertion.

It is fact that you needed 10% more experience than you had, but (according to you) had missed far less than 10% of the game. Impossibility of 59 based on that is a very reasonable assertion.

Comparatively, the possibility of level 60 "because it seems like something developers would do" is a completely unreasonable assertion.

This is just as stupid as someone assuming a car "should" be able to go 2.5% faster "because going fast is what cars do, right?" There is no logic behind that theory, and as such any tiny amount of actual data against it is sufficient to consider it disproven until better evidence is presented.

But feel free to put your hand into the hand crusher the last 7 guys who attempted it would have succeeded if they only moved 0.5% faster, and none of them were really pushing themselves to go as fast as they could. Surely you'll make it... after all, it just feels right.

(Kar - my reference to it later will actually probably be in various algorithm derivations for small game ideas I play with. I'm a professional software developer looking to get into simple game design.)



[Edit]

Oh, and one last thing.

Just because you "don't recommend" attempting the impossible doesn't make it any less silly that you're claiming it's possible. We're not arguing with your recommendation, we're arguing with the statement that it's at all possible. Your recommendation is like saying "may contain nuts" on a bag of airline peanuts. Not bothering to attempt the provably impossible should be a given.

Modifié par Crias, 19 mars 2010 - 01:36 .

[Phaelducan]

I reject that assertion when it comes to harmless pursuits Crias. In and of itself trying to do the impossible or generally accepted as impossible in a dangerous activity is not comparable to an activity which has no innate consequence.



It's a video game, if someone fails to hit 60, they haven't lost a hand or their life. You are being ridiculous.



Beyond that, there STILL was no assertion that anyone should be able to hit 60. I said that I felt like there was a way to theoretically hit 60 if one was able to obtain every single experience point in the game. Theoretically... not easily... not by happenstance. From the beginning I also put the disclaimer in that it would be extremely difficult to pull it off even IF it was possible, and I made no claim that it was definitely possible... and then went further as to state that I wouldn't try it... and no one else "should" try it due to access/difficulty/practicality.



TOP made a general inquiry about the process of leveling to 60, and I offered my opinion on it with a clear reference to it not being based on scientific inquiry or process. I used anecdotal evidence, I described my various play throughs, and referenced what I thought would have to happen in a play through to hit the level cap in one run... in the same breath stating that I didn't recommend trying.



Your response is to call that dangerous and irresponsible... and then validate completely irrelevant comparisons to activities that might kill someone.



That isn't missing the point, you are still trying to make this about some greater point of logic and mathematics, and it simply isn't. It's a game forum, get over yourselves.



We aren't even really talking about leveling anymore, you've made this about suicide by car acceleration and getting hands crushed. It's officially the lamest, and most pointless irrelevant tangent this threat could have possibly veered towards.

[Karstedt]

Phaelducan wrote...

I reject that assertion when it comes to harmless pursuits Crias. In and of itself trying to do the impossible or generally accepted as impossible in a dangerous activity is not comparable to an activity which has no innate consequence.

I can see that you reject that. Many people do, and it greatly contributes to the general ignorance perpetuated by our people.

It's a video game, if someone fails to hit 60, they haven't lost a hand or their life. You are being ridiculous.

Not once did I say failure to hit 59 or 60 would result in such consequences. This comment can only be a result of intentional disregard or misinterpretation of what I said; since I have thoroughly described the intentions, parallels and relevance of my comparison.

Your response is to call that dangerous and irresponsible... and then validate completely irrelevant comparisons to activities that might kill someone.

Nobody called it dangerous and irresponsible (though I definitely implied the latter). It was called silly and ridiculous. And again, I have thoroughly explained the comparisons and their relevance. That relevance being that it is equally silly and ridiculous to make similar claims of more risky activities. It also happens to be dangerous and irresponsible in the compared activities, and that's what make the point so obvious.

That isn't missing the point, you are still trying to make this about some greater point of logic and mathematics, and it simply isn't. It's a game forum, get over yourselves.

Logic an math are simply two suppoting elements of the greater point... that point being reality. Your assertion that this is somehow about logic and math, or even more misguidedly about me or Crais, merely demonstrates you missing the point. 

We aren't even really talking about leveling anymore, you've made this about suicide by car acceleration and getting hands crushed. It's officially the lamest, and most pointless irrelevant tangent this threat could have possibly veered towards.

Again, if you don't understand the comparisons, there is nothing more I can do for you. And if I were to suppose for a moment that this is indeed the lamest, and most pointless irrelevant tangent possible. Then I would counter with; It's no lamer than your initial assertations on level 59 and 60. But that to would be a comparison to make point... which you would reject I take it.

"I reject your reality, and substitue my own!" - Adam Savage (Gah, another compairson! I just can't help it.)

[Phaelducan]

Ah, so in summary...



"I'm right and you're wrong."



"No, I'm right and you're wrong."



Pointless? Yup.

[Karstedt]

Actually the summary would be more adequately displayed through use of this handy comparison I've whipped up. I know! What's with me and the use of comparisons, right? It's like a running theme/joke.



I say:

1+1+2+1=6 is equally ridiculous to 1+1+2+1=Death, in order to demonstrate the absurdity of 1+1+2+1=6



You say:

1+1+2+1=6 is in no way comparable to 1+1+2+1=Death. Therby maintaining the validity (albeit stretched) of 1+1+2+1=6.



Pointless? I think we have reached an agreement Phael. I'm glad we had this little talk ;P

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

It's like Geth vs Heretics up in this biznatch!



1 is less than 2. 3 is greater than 2.

[Crias]

Don't be silly Doctor! Math can't prove stuff!



The leveling system -is- math... yet using math to prove how ridiculous hitting 60 in one run is ridiculous?



Phael, you're just pissed off someone used real hard logic to disprove your bullcrap "anecdotal" evidence, and to point out how ludicrous your anecdote was.



The use of examples and comparisons in a debate such is this is very common practice, and no comparison is ever 100% perfect, which is why we've clarified which parts of the comparisons are relevant.



For the record, I do hold it as irresponsible to try, and irresponsible for you to even claim it's possible.



Take this for example:

Playthrough 1, not missing a thing... 30-40 hours.

Playthrough 2 - "must have missed something", more meticulous.... 55 hours

Playthrough 3 - "Ok, I'm GOING to get it this time." - 60 hours.



How many playthroughs will it take people to realize that your "anecdote" was full of crap? How many hours of various people's lives could your anecdote DIRECTLY cost? Tell me it's ok to essentially waste even 150 hours of someone's time because you thought it "felt right" that level 60 "should" be possible.



Just because you don't recommend it doesn't mean people won't do it JUST because you provided (useless) evidence that it MIGHT be possible... especially if they would be the first to achieve it.

[Azn_Vanguard]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

It's like Geth vs Heretics up in this biznatch!

1 is less than 2. 3 is greater than 2.

I agree with you, this is pretty entertaining. lol

[Karstedt]

Azn_Vanguard wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

It's like Geth vs Heretics up in this biznatch!

1 is less than 2. 3 is greater than 2.

I agree with you, this is pretty entertaining. lol

You two better watch it. Between my sword of absurd comparison and Crais dismantling your anecdotal statemet, I think we can take you.

[Phaelducan]

"Phael, you're just pissed off someone used real hard logic to disprove your bullcrap "anecdotal" evidence, and to point out how ludicrous your anecdote was." -Crias

Hard Logic? Surely you jest. Your logic contained no less than 3 Logical Fallacies.
1. Weak Analogy: A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak. A being attempting to hit a level cap in a game, B is reaching a speed limit with a car. B has property P, potential hazard/death, therefore A has property P).

2. False Analogy: (You actually try to use this as a basis for your logic by citing "The use of examples and comparisons in a debate such is this is very common practice, and no comparison is ever 100% perfect, which is why we've clarified which parts of the comparisons are relevant.)
To use the classic example, "How is a Raven like a Writing Desk?" would be the substitute for "How is attempting to level to 60 like attempting to reach a maximum driving speed?"
In this case, the fallacy is by equating "they both include the same % increase from item achieved to item desired" to "Edgar Allen Poe wrote on both of them."
You are absolutely correct... that IS an analogy... it's just a false one.

3. ad Hominem - by attacking the poster, and not the post. Claiming what I did was irresponsible, claiming that I wasted 150+ hours of someone's life, claiming that I even supported the notion of trying to hit 60 in one playthrough (etc, etc). These are methods aimed to discredit a person, and not an argument, and is actually the most common logical fallacy.

Now, I won't call the kettle black, so to speak, as I also used a logical fallacy, that of anecdotal evidence, or the "I know a guy..." argument. However, the difference is that I clearly stated from the inception of my argument that I was using anecdotal evidence, that I did not have scientific proof, and that I was using only my own personal experience as a basis for my argument. I never advocated for anyone to try it, I stated the reasons why I thought it was foolish or an otherwise bad idea, and then I clearly listed what my play through had included and what I knew that I had missed... as well as what level I ended up as.

By fair counting, that is my one logical fallacy, which was incidently fully disclosed and labeled as such from the beginning....
to your multiple fallacious arguments that constitute your "hard logic."

Furthermore, I am not "pissed" as you put it, and from the tone of your posts, I would suggest that perhaps it is not I that need to take a deep breath, relax, and realize that it's really not that important. Emphasis on suggest, if you want to be angry, then by all means, that's your right.

As a final point, there is no point in trying to "disprove your(my) bullcrap "anecdotal" evidence" as anecdotal evidence by it's very nature is not proof to begin with, and in this case was never offered as such. I offered an opinion on why I felt something was possible, which means ostensibly jack and squat. Definitely not proof.

Now, I would imagine this to continue, but I would also imagine that if we all stopped to really analyze what this has devolved into, we could likely agree that there really isn't a point anymore.

1. I received the exp numbers from Karstedt, and redacted my claim that I thought level 60 was possible with the parameters I envisioned.
2. I modified my hypothesis of "59 being easy to obtain" to "59 would still be difficult to obtain, even under ideal conditions."

Edit:
Speaking primarily to Crias here -
Why are you still adding fuel to the fire? This could, and should be resolved now... I am struggling to find a motive to keep this argument going, the discussion has played out.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 21 mars 2010 - 11:24 .

[Karstedt]

Phaelducan wrote...

2. False Analogy: (You actually try to use this as a basis for your logic by citing "The use of examples and comparisons in a debate such is this is very common practice, and no comparison is ever 100% perfect, which is why we've clarified which parts of the comparisons are relevant.)
To use the classic example, "How is a Raven like a Writing Desk?" would be the substitute for "How is attempting to level to 60 like attempting to reach a maximum driving speed?"
In this case, the fallacy is by equating "they both include the same % increase from item achieved to item desired" to "Edgar Allen Poe wrote on both of them."
You are absolutely correct... that IS an analogy... it's just a false one.

My comparison was not weak, and it wasn't even based heavily on the % difference for acheivment.

Activity A: You are trying to acheive something (in this case level 59, which I still don't think is possible even under ideal circumstances, but since I've not seen anyone actually plot out every expereience point in the game and arrange them like a puzzle for optimum outcome I will admit to a rought .00001% chance). There is a hard limit on what you can acheive (only so much xp in the game). That hard limit is lower than your target (all recorded evidance points to that hard limit being under 59). There are consequences to trying to reach your goal in spite of the limitation (wasted time).

Activity B: You are trying to acheive something (in this case reaching 140mph in a particular vehicle, or whatever speed I said). There is a hard limit on what the vehicle (in this case, the aeodynamics of the car cause it to lift of the ground and flip when it hits 138mph). That hard limit is lower than your target (tests show that the vehicle will lift and flip when it reached 138mph). There are consequences to trying to reach your goal in spite of the limitation (severe car crash).

There are 4 elements here, all identical in nature and related to each other in exactly the same way. The severe result of the latter example simply emphasizes the ridiculousness of the entire equation. Meaning that anything that follows that equation is ridiculous. How are these not parallell? The fact that one is about speeding vehicles and the other is about leveling up does not alter the nature of the compared aspects or their relation to one another. How are the elements and their relation to one another weak or false?

A: goal-limitlowerthangoal-reachforgoalanyway-fail
B: goal-limitlowerthangoal-reachforgoalanyway-fail

You raven analogy is in fact a false analogy to this situation. That is simply finding a link between two static objects. If you were to compare the raven analogy VS "cars are like elephants because they have trunks", that would be a relevant comparison to this situation (not to the whole xp and leveling obviously, but to the debate on weather or not my analogy is accurate). Because in both analogies, you are simply finding a common link (any link in this case) between two objects.

As for sticking to the idea that 59 may be possible, even as I greatly exageratted the numbers you provided from your playthrough that 'almost' made it, you'd still have fallen short. Obviously, you're going to believe what you're going to belive on the feasability of level 59. And I'm not trying to convince you on this particular item. I just want to make sure that anyone else can see, that the situation as you have reported it does not allow for the result you imply.

[Phaelducan]

Not sure why you quoted False Analogy then defend against Weak Analogy primarily.

In any case, the assertions in your post aren't any different than the first time you listed them. I understand the desire to "spin" logic, but if either you or Crias are attempting to use hard logic as a justification in this discussion, then there is no spin.

Quantifiably, clinically, there is no real analogy between the consequences you describe. It is a false analogy, as well as weak. The Raven analogy isn't mine, it's just the typically used example of how this particulary type of analogy constitutes a thinking error and logical fallacy.

The parallel of death/dismemberment does not compare with time spent leveling in a game. That analogy is, by definition, false. The fact that both have consequences is irrelevant. Missing the first five minutes of Lost on TV is a consequence. Having the house burn down is also a consequence. That doesn't mean you can use them in a logical equation via analogy.... even if the criteria that arrives at both consequences is identical, it's still a false analogy.

This isn't me telling you what I think logic is. The rules are thousands of years old and well established. If you want to change them for an internet forum argument, feel free, but then we aren't really being "logical" anymore.

I'll repost the exact definition.

1. Weak Analogy: A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak. A being attempting to hit a level cap in a game, B is reaching a speed limit with a car. B has property P, potential hazard/death, therefore A has property P).

Verbatim, that's a fallacy.

Going back to the level 59 point? Well, not sure why that's still relevant, but in that post with the numbers I admitted that it would be hard to come up with the necessary experience just from timed levels with none wasted. Why are you attempting to argue with me on a point that I already conceded?

Are you just trying to be argumentative with no purpose? If that is the case, just say so. I have no interest in talking about this ad nauseam for the fun of it.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 21 mars 2010 - 12:40 .

[Karstedt]

Your latching onto the extreme consequence of the my analogy in an attempt to ignore it's relevance.



A is like B, and both have property P (fail). property Z (consequence, they also both have, but is only part of the analogy to demonstrate absurdidty, not that the consequences themselves are similar)



Let's just alter my analogy to say that the car doesn't flip, it just won't go any faster. You still fail to reach the desired speed, and the attempt is still just as worthless.



My analogy in no way assigns the consequences of a car wreck to the failure to reach level 59. It uses the greater consequences of identical thinking applied to a riskier situation to illustrate the absurdity of that line of thinking. Analogies are not predictive, so it would be stupid of me to fabricate properties from one, to assign to another. I didn't do that. I understand your desire to "spin" my analogy to make it irrelevant. But that doesn't change the analogy or it's valididty.



Forget about the consequences for a minute (as they are merely demonstrative). Assuming that I'm correct for a second about the hard limit on xp being where it is (that's a separate issue), the lines of action/reasoning between the analogies are identical, and both result in failure. That's the analogy part.



The difference in consequence merely demonstrates the magnitude of absurdity in that line of action. People often don't get just how ridiculous something is until they do the exact same thing in a more dire situation. If you wouldn't do something when your safety is on the line, Why would you ever do it?

[The Grey Ranger]

Guys that argument is getting a little silly. You're not even really on topic any more. You're both arguing over an analogy.

[OneBadAssMother]

I've never tried this glitch, but...



On the UNC mission with Major Kyle

* Upon successfully hacking the first building door, the alarm sounds and you receive experience. If you leave without completing the task inside, you may re-hack the door for more experience and repeat the process as often as desired. (PC Version and Console)

http://masseffect.wi...UNC:_Major_Kyle



Got that from the wikia, so it MIGHT be possible to get to lvl 60 using this exploit. Haven't tried it myself, but anyone may feel free to try.

[Dethateer]

It'd be a hell of a lot faster to use the s/l glitch in the cave with the Mining Laser.

[Crias]

Since Kar has already adequately "defended" 2 of the 3 logical fallacies, the ones in which I believe both he and I were misrepresented no less, I'll speak to the third one.



"3. ad Hominem - by attacking the poster"



In response to that... I think you're irresponsible and an idiot. Frankly, that has nothing to do with whether or not you're right, it's just my opinion.



You latch on to every part of the argument that -isn't- relevant. But like Azn_Vanguard - this was pretty entertaining



"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" (Einstein), therefore you are stupid. But don't take it personally, so am I, so let's just stick to shooting Geth shall we? lmao

[Mallissin]

There's no way to get all 60 levels in one play through, even with every DLC. Even if you do Bad Ass's trick, the cheat would take HOURS to get the hundreds of thousands of points you'd need.



So, if you're going to cheat, might as well just use the console.



And quit the bickering. I'd find a quote about arguing with a fool, but I seem to remember it involved playing the fool's game and losing. So, I YIELD!

[Dethateer]

Crias wrote...
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" (Einstein), therefore you are stupid. But don't take it personally, so am I, so let's just stick to shooting Geth shall we? lmao

Doesn't that apply to you as well?

[Crias]

It clearly applies to you Dethateer.



Reread what I said. Read that last line six more times. And I quote, "But don't take it personally, so am I".



Mallassin, I think it's more about whether or not it's possible. If they want to hit 60 without the console trick (ie: on an XBox), the obvious way is to just do a second playthrough. It has more to do with the question - just how high can you get in a single cheat-free playthrough?