Here are the rules:
Some enemy attacks can knock you back.
Some ledges lead to player death if you fall.
What’s innately unfair about this proposition? Nothing.
You’re allowed to get frustrated but you can’t justify calling it unfair, at least not with good logic.
That strawman argument with lightning damage was hillarious to read though.
That being said, maybe they can make it so you land in poison or slow burning ground and give you chance a to make it out.
Not at all, “skill issue” does not meant that you are bad at the whole game, just the specific part that is the subject of the talk. In this case it’s positioning and to some extent dodging, which are very valid skills you can learn. So if you have problems with one or the other calling “skill issue” is correct.
I said it intentionally, because OP was clearly super mad at the game and i like to poke people a bit in those situations in hope that the person had a moment of weakness, but overall has a right mindset and will laugh at it, calm down and realize that it actually is a skill issue that he can improve. Thankfully OP reacted exactly what i was hoping he would react.
Not really. By getting knocked off you are making multiple mistakes, not just one. First mistake is that you stay in unfavorable position, in this case too close to the edge. Second mistake is not always the case where you do not know / track what moves enemies are about to do. And third one is that you did not do anything about incoming attack like move away to better position or just dodge it, especially when you should exactly know in what predicament you are in. You know… thinking ahead what can happen, what are current enemy positions, ect. instead of just playing with your eyes only.
What is subjective? Being ok with falling from time to time? You would want the game to place invisible pillows everywhere? xD What’s gonna be next, we replace enemy weapons with a rubber toy ones, so that they cannot hurt you? Really, if falling occasionally makes you rage or frustrated you should do something about it, because that is not the best mental attitude to have in life. You will be constantly frustrated about everything.
But we do have facts assuming OP did not lied, he died multiple times from falling due to bad positioning / dodging, ect. to the point he rage posted on a forum. At least that how i interpreted the post he made with angry emotes. I said in previous paragraphs that i just wanted to poke him a bit in hope he laughs at it and at himself, while i can practice my english skills. I see how you can see it as being a prick tho and i don’t mind.
I don’t mind, why would i be mad at some anonymous person insulting me? Especially in this overly general way. If me from a different timeline wanted to gave a piano concert on the streets, made few mistakes and then started raging that this melody he tried to play is too complex and 30% of notes should be removed, NOW! 
If you would say “skill issue” in this scenario the current me would approve and not see it as being a prick, because it would be in fact a skill issue.
I would like to tackle rest of your post but mine is too long already 
okay, please tell us how was my “lightning damage” analogy a strawman argument bud? XD LMAO
now, the way you put it…
you are right, nothing inherently wrong w/ the proposition.
if it were always simple and void of nuance as you put…
assuming is the player’s fault or lack of skill WITHOUT considering game might not be working properly, or consistently, or even just because you’ve never experienced something similar…
now, I know you might just want to give constructive feedback, as a possibility tho I’m not confident in that… LOL
sooo… if you wanna call me out on “fallacies” let’s address yours as well:
Equivocation: you narrowly define the rules of the game, and call them fair because those are the existing rules. When we are clearing discussing the fairness/unfairness of the rules.
Begging the question: you assert that any attempt to logically argue unfairness is not good logic, while me and others have pointed very logic argument like: disproportionate punishment or lack of recourse, I would call those unfair and very sound logically. But you are just dismissing without giving a logical argument yourself…
Ad Hominem: instead of engaging w/ my argument, you are just attacking me by accusing me of making an strawman argument, which you can’t prove logically because you are mistaken… but if you really think was, then please explain to me how does it fit… making the statement as underhanded joke is a good tactic tho, unfortunately (for you) only if undetected… XD
There is not much constructive feed back I can give to someone that can’t write 2 coherent sentences without LMAO, LOL, XD and other logic bolstering acronyms. Friendly advice, this really makes you seem insecure to anyone with above average IQ. Don’t do it “bud”.
But I do find it mildly amusing that when someone calls you out on your strawman argument, which you, in your limited understanding of logic (deduced from your lackluster attempt at attributing fallacies to my statements) believe it to be a good representation of the situation, you call it ad hominem. Guess this is where you would insert LOL to make it seem like you have the intellectual high ground?
Using analogies to argue your point is probably the lowest form of intellectual jousting one could engage with, but at least try and come up with more relevant ones in the future. Lightning damage is random, enemy behaviour is not. There, your entire argument now holds about as much water as a sieve and so does your other attempts at addressing “fallacies”. Equivocation!? Really? This really begs another one of your acronyms.
I agree but consider that obviously we must not take for granted that they are wrong just because they are not arguing properly it is more likely that they have no desire to discuss our points because they do not want or do not know how to argue not because they are wrong, I am open to criticism and would like to know why they believe that dying from 100hp to 0hp with falls is an adequate punishment, I said that in my opinion it is not, because there are more serious errors that are not punished so severely
I agree but also when getting hit by an enemy in general the player is meking multiple mistakes, positioning, reaction and reading enemy attacks correctly are always in the equation when you get hit, in this case there is only the fact that positioning is more important than usual, and as I said before I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be punished but that the current punishment is too much compared to the mistakes getting pushed by a shield hit usually just stuns you (and here I think it’s a bit strange that it doesn’t do damage too, I think it should, since is an attack like the others) but if there is a precipice this act has the possibility of killing you from 100hp to 0hp if you position yourself badly, positioning yourself badly is not a stupid mistake but it is not a very serious mistake either especially considering that the attack will push you very far away at least it’s not as big of a mistake as to be hit by a boss’s strongest attack.
@Canis.Lupus.Arctos While I understand what you were trying to convey with the example, you didn’t give a good example, Your example gives the idea that everything is random when in reality the player is perfectly able to analyze his surroundings, but I agree with the idea that being punished so heavily is frustrating since the player does not deserve that degree of punishment.
You’re also teasing people a bit too much between one criticism and another.
And using “xD”, “Lol”, etc. so often adds nothing of value to your posts.
@BlackWaterPirate just because @Canis.Lupus.Arctos doesn’t agree with you and is a bit frivolous doesn’t mean his opinion isn’t valid and you can’t disrespect him in this way, let’s have a civil discussion, you are also confirming the criticisms he made of you here:
okay bud, I’m glad you decided to address me directly this time… and as common curtesy I want to make this very clear: my objective is NOT to attack you personally, I really wanna give precise feedback to Moon (by engaging on the forums), but I also despise toxicity and underhanded comments/tactics… so I’ll be plain and frank: I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you have no malice in your comments, BUT I need to tell you, the way you argument seem very loaded… so to keep my promise I’ll just address these issues, but will leave the OP’s topic alone for a bit (because in all truthfulness I already made my points VERY clear there)…
Skill Issue: you literally said that front and center, multiple times in fact… maybe you did not intent on that, maybe you are just operating like an “armchair psychologist”, but from 1 “armchair psy-ops operator” to another: don’t… retconning your statements are generally not good… again, maybe only if you can get away w/ it… XD
here are the facts: this is the internet, we can’t know past what’s written there, and while we are missing the nuances of physical presence, we still can infer a lot, the crux: 2 types, there’re bad assumptions and educated guesses… I can’t speak for the OP, but neither can you… he might have phrased like he’s mad, but later his demeanor was much lighter, he also have not specified his situation at the crucible in the same details as you did… which tells me you are using your own experiences and transferring those to others (OP included)… I gave you my own accounting of my bad experience (tho I didn’t specify how often, in fact let me tell you now, I rarely die by falling much like yourself, when I do is usually my own fault kinda for not mastering having sprint and dodge on the same key, separate critique BTW but for another time, but ever so often I die by being knocked in an unfair way as explained)… my point here is “Thankfully OP reacted exactly what i was hoping he would react” means you were expecting a chance of he reacting the opposite as well, and left this to chance… hence me calling it “bad argument” since there is the very believable chance for things turning bad in the conversation (often called toxicity LOL)… a better approach if you don’t mind my suggestion: ask for more detail especially due to the fact your experience has been largely different (I don’t need to do that, since I can relate to his)… you literally admit “pocking”, which means teasing, is fine if you know him, or if the mood allows for such jokes… but trust me, more often than not provoking others usually has bad consequences, particularly when said people are already mad/stressed (yeah I know, snowflakes everywhere, still reality tho)… is insensitive at best and manipulative at worst…
now, others and myself, made arguments about consistency and fairness of the current crucible… and you, instead of addressing those w/ counter arguments, is literally creating a specific scenario where game is flawless, players make mistakes, and thus everything is fair… if SwampPirate actually understood anything about fallacies he would be the 1st to spot this “strawman in the flesh” LOL XD (how you people like pocking and underhanded comments now? fun? hopefully you’ll react exactly as I expect 
)
just to make it clear for you, since you seem a bit lost: I never, ever, asked for: invisible pillows everywhere, nor rubber toys as weapons… also never once said dying is not okay in a challenging game, nor that is not okay to get frustrated when one makes mistakes… I also didn’t spot anyone mentioning those things other than YOU yourself. May I ask you where did pick those up? you don’t need even to quote them, just point us in the overall direction we are not helpless and will find (if they exist, obviously) as you consistently imply you are very precise in very challenging situations… (if I assume things wrongly about you, please do correct me, I’m only going off from your comments here and admit I can make mistakes, from time to time off course) (oh, I usually don’t make multiple mistakes, so you know, no need to assume stuff I can tell you what you need to know, just ask)
I feel the urge to help you get better at logic as well, so we can have more productive debates: we can infer information not only from given information… you assume the OP didn’t lie, this is an educated guess, since he has little to gain by lying here, on top of “sounding” genuine as a matter of fact… but also we can infer from the absence of information, here’s how, the OP didn’t make many descriptions other than “falling or getting rammed from the ledges” and “multiple times”, but you with a conclusion in hand (perfect game paired w/ lack of skill) and the lack of details, assume the perfect scenario where your conclusion gets to be the right 1 while dismissing any other possible scenario that could be also correct…
I’ll grant you tho, I didn’t know you are not a native English speaker and we could be just lost in translation… but then this gives even stronger support to my argument against “pocking” people… this is basic common sense when dealing w/ people from other cultures… the way you phrased your arguments are kinda offensive bud, even if the OP didn’t take them personally…
I’m glad you didn’t take offense, since that was not the objective… my rule of thumb: treat others like you would like to be treated, but also don’t make prisoners… XD
(sorry I really didn’t understand your analogy there at the end, but you are mistaken, he (OP) didn’t ask for anything to be “..removed, NOW! ”, he just asked for it to be “sorted” (a solution))
note: you can take your time, there is no rush, you can even send me DMs if you prefer
do you know the phrase “show don’t tell”, yeah another boring analogy, but is actually helpful (I promise) and will become relevant later, so keep it in mind…
okay, I may be insecure… or not… you are just assuming those while openly attacking me now… how do I know? you claim I have low IQ while you can’t keep up w/ neither the conversation nor acronyms… you know what is needed for conversations over the internet? words… simple… oh but also “reading”… important too… oh man, almost forgot, comprehension skills… the list is getting bigger, do you need us to nerf the conversation down, or can you keep up still… XD (i like to use those, lightens the mood, but if too distracting for you copy and paste the text somewhere and remove those, ctrl-f is helpful here)
but hey you tells us all we need to know about you, right here:
this tells me you have not intend on productive debate, and even hints some malice… but I may be mistaken, if so correct me… (you mentioned you were joking)
now, for the sake of others, I’ll address your yapping:
instead of logically demonstrating my (alleged) “strawman”, you chose to attack me (this is called Ad Hominem, I’m not wrong, you can easily verify this, others too if they are confused like you clearly are)
in fact virtually all you wrote are attacks on: my writing style, assumptions on my emotions, implied intelligence… if you are not going to make any logical argument and just insult me, this conversation will get no where… but then again, I don’t think this is your objective anyways…
just a suggestion, instead of dismissing fallacies, try to actually understand how those work, you are making a series of them, and accusing me of your own mistakes… this is called transference… is very similar to how flat-earths rationalize stuff… oh shucks another pesky analogy… but don’t worry I’m not calling you a flat-earther, was an honest analogy that can be read as a joke too… need some IQ for that tho… XD
I will apologize tho, I am mirroring your behavior, and is not nice, but you directly insulted me… not every one has the level of intellectual skill to argue logically, but much like this game is a challenge you can overcome… if you keep just insulting me, I may respond, but wont lead anywhere, I don’t know you, but seen your posts b4, even agree w/ some… but the overall vibe I get from you is you seem to wanna prove something (maybe that you are good at this game, maybe that you are more intelligent, it doesn’t matter)… sorry to point your flaws, but you brought this on yourself…
I didn’t claim you have low IQ, but it seems like you do suffer from a bit of reading comprehension deficiency and your writing skills are subpar to say the least. Your sentence structure is actually abysmal making it very hard to follow the thoughts you are trying to put into words. It is no wonder that you resort to prosthetic filler acronyms to mask your charade.
I pointed out your strawman argument, you took it as an insult and tried to insult me back. Well guess what, I’m not insulted by you, you don’t have the intellectual capacity to do so.
I made a very simple logical argument and dismantled your fallacies, beyond this I had no interest in “debating” you and I have nothing to prove. You on the other hand walked in here and tried to impose your weak logic on someone who in their own rights have clearly fended you off adequately. I just found it amusing. That’s all there is to this forum interaction, amusement. I do actually help out a lot people with questions they have as far as my knowledge of the game systems allow me to, so yeah, even in the post you’re quoting (a weak attempt at contextomy), I made a facetious remark and followed up by letting them know how to improve their poise.
The funny thing is, I didn’t even address you directly, I had no interest in engaging with your polemic diatribe and screed. I have nothing to gain from the interaction and you have nothing to offer. Debating logic on a game forum? Please. There are better ways to waste time.
You can try and in your own mind, which clearly suffers heavily from illusions of grandeur, mirror me, the problem is you have about as strong a hold on logic as a baby on and oiled bar. Now that’s a direct attack on you, based on your displayed behaviour. Calling out your strawman argument, was not.
No, his opinion is not valid as he clearly doesn’t understand what equivocation fallacy is. If he’s claiming that I’m narrowly defining the argument against the totality of it, that’s reductionism, not equivocation. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
If I’m being reductionist, then feel free to add the layers I’m missing and we can talk about that. And while you’re at it, find a good way to define fairness objectively because this what your entire argument is hinging on: Fairness of dying because of falling.
And let’s be clear, you don’t randomly stumble and fall, like his lightning analogy. You fall because you position yourself against a ledge which you know is going to be fatal, and against enemies you know have the ability to knock you back. You have put yourself in a position where your mistakes will lead to your death. The claim that enemies attack you offscreen is factually incorrect. This is something that was addressed in Hotfix 1 or 2, I’m not quite sure and has actually lead to caricaturization of the enemy AI. Enemies might attack you off screen after you’ve aggroed them ON screen. Well guess what, that’s also bad decision making on your part. If you aggroed an enemy, it ran off-screen and attacked you, you initiated that interaction. You were aware of the enemy presence, you took on a fight that was not in your advantage, that doesn’t mean the game system is unfair.
The important part of my message is that you should not disrespect anyone, and that other people’s opinions are “valid” (I don’t mean that they are correct, I mean that they should be taken seriously).
He seid equivocation in regads to:
the reductionism is not the main point it’s just the first part of the sentence
As I said in my message I agree that the example he gave is bad, but you can still understand what he was trying to say with that example and criticize that directly, as I did here:
furthermore it seems that you have not grasped the fact that I have said multiple times that the punishment must be proportional to the error, not that the punishment must not be there or that the error does not exist, @Canis.Lupus.Arctos it’s of the same poinion, he says it here:
Also when I said that “just because @Canis.Lupus.Arctos doesn’t agree with you and is a bit frivolous doesn’t mean his opinion isn’t valid and you can’t disrespect him in this way, let’s have a civil discussion” I was thinking about this:
This is our logic:
why do you think it is not valid?
No, you cannot take one sentence out of his entire diatribe, which was a clear and feeble attack at questioning my logic and say, that’s not the point. Again, that’s quote mining. He was wrong with every pathetic attempt he made to look himself look logically superior. And I don’t understand why you feel the need to be his advocate? He’s been trying to muster up a response for the past hour which I won’t even bother reading. I’m sure he can do his own arm flailing attempt.
Did you also conveniently overlook this? I clearly said, maybe there is a way to make the outcome of your mistake less punishing. Although the game mechanics are not inherently unfair.
Why is your “feeling” not logically valid? Because that’s a subjective take on the outcome of a game mechanic that is not logically unfair. Getting knocked back won’t always kill you. It will kill you if you get knocked off a ledge. You tell me why is that unfair? The crucible is meant to test you on your skills, including positioning. You feel like it shouldn’t punish you as hard, OK, that’s fine. Just don’t try and make it seem like there is something inherently unfair within the game system or make it analogous to some random lightning. That was my argument and what was not valid were his remarks on logical fallacies.
there is too much stuff to read and process, i didn’t overlook this but i don’t understand what you mean since you sead that “you can’t justify calling it unfair” before
I told you: getting hit by an enemy in general the player is meking multiple mistakes, positioning, reaction and reading enemy attacks correctly are always in the equation when you get hit, in this case there is only the fact that positioning is more important than usual, and as I said before I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be punished but that the current punishment is too much compared to the mistakes getting pushed by a shield hit usually just stuns you (and here I think it’s a bit strange that it doesn’t do damage too, I think it should, since is an attack like the others) but if there is a precipice this act has the possibility of killing you from 100hp to 0hp if you position yourself badly, positioning yourself badly is not a stupid mistake but it is not a very serious mistake either especially considering that the attack will push you very far away at least it’s not as big of a mistake as to be hit by a boss’s strongest attack.
Is not just a feeling, I have played this game a lot, I can tell that this mechanic, is not in line with the rest of the game, it is not unreasonable but is a bit unfair.
And I don’t understand why you feel the need to be so mean to him, I understand that he expresses himself in a somewhat strange way, and that he is a bit annoying and antagonistic, but you went straight to war.
Because he was being an arrogant, sarcastic buffoon and needed a slice of humble pie served. Not that it will change anything, but got what he deserved. He’s still typing too, it’s hilarious.
It’s a feeling because you can’t logically justify your position. There is no logical pathway between your premises. What you’re saying is because getting hit once by a normal mob doesn’t kill you in most circumstances, therefore, it should not kill you in the case of falling off a ledge into the abyss. You feel that this is an unfair interaction. Let me give you an example: I sell you apples for $10 and you says that’s not fair. I ask why, you say because they were $5 last week. Is it logical that the price should stay the same? No. The market has changed, the circumstances of the transaction have also change. Now, there are no apples on the market and I’ve bumped the price to make more profit on my last batch. It’s logical for me to take advantage of the market situation, and you “feel” that’s unfair while your only logical connection is that they were cheaper under different circumstances. That’s weak logic. It doesn’t mean your feeling and opinion is invalid.
Premise A —> Outcome X
Premise A x B —> Outcome Y
You want:
Premise A —> Outcome X
Premise A x B —> Outcome X
A is knock back, B is being near a specific ledge, X is living and Y is death.
I will use the same analogy
Premise A (take damage) —> Outcome X (you have less health)
Premise C (you fall) —> Outcome Y (you died 100 to 0)
Premise A (take damage) x C (you fall) —> Outcome Y (you died 100 to 0)
I want:
Premise A (take damage) —> Outcome X (you have less health)
Premise C (you fall) —> Outcome Z (you colse to die)
Premise A (take damage) x C (you fall) —> Outcome Z (you colse to die)
OK then you should have introduced a new parameter called Z (almost dead)
Premise A —> Outcome X
Premise A x B —> Outcome Y
You want:
Premise A —> Outcome X
Premise A x B —> Outcome Z
Now, tell me why should A x B give you Z besides the fact that A usually gives you X in absence of B?
You are asking for the properties of B to change to your liking with no logical explanation why besides the properties of A in absence of B. This is not logical.
You don’t have to be logical. It’s ok to feel this is unfair without trying to mess with logic.
I think you underestimate how important positioning actually is in games. Bad positioning in moba or fps games can very easily cost you and your teammates a game. In mmo bad positioning in an instanced dungeon can very easily result in a party wipe out. In every of those games there are of course situations where bad positioning is not as punishing, but there are situations too that will very harshly punish you for it.
I’m not sure if we’re speaking the same language, let me try again
That’s how things work now:
Mistake X (you get pushed) —> Outcome X (You are stunned)
Big Mistake Y (you fall) —> Outcome Y (you died 100 to 0)
Big Mistake Z (you take damage from the storngest attack of a boss) —> Outcome Z (you colse to die)
Mistake X + Big Mistake Y —> Outcome Y (you died 100 to 0)
Big Mistake Y ≠ Big Mistake Z
I want:
Mistake X (you get pushed) —> Outcome X (You are stunned)
Big Mistake Y (you fall) —> Outcome Z (you colse to die)
Big Mistake Z (you take damage from the storngest attack of a boss) —> Outcome Z (you colse to die)
Mistake X + Big Mistake Y —> Outcome Z (you colse to die)
Big Mistake Y = Big Mistake Z
really going to double down on insults? really?
okay, I’ll drop analogies/acronyms/fallacies/etc…because you are right, those don’t help when the other party doesn’t even understand their meanings…
tho 1st, I think my sentence structure is very clear and easy to follow, but since you called me on that several times:
and here:
please specify what you want me to explain, I’ll accommodate your requests from the next post… and you don’t need to insult me to say that BTW
you did call my IQ low, albeit indirectly:
here:
and here:
(added retroactively I might add, dirty move dude)
oh by the way, you know we all can see all your edits, right? I mean, correcting typos is just good practice, but introducing whole sentences mid debate is as bad if not worse than making your posts private (people do that in some other places, hope is not a thing here)
I don’t know how else to read into this, maybe you are right and my comprehension skills are low… or not me, but you are the one bad at argumentation… or you just enjoy giving underhanded insults (most likely)
you are being dishonest, and that proves it…
now, since you refuse to actually show me the facts, I’ll explain directly to you:
no you did not:
you just called it a “strawman”, but just because you call it so, it doesn’t make it true… here gonna help you, here is my quote you refer:
this is an analogy, made using a setting very similar to help understanding…
strawmanning is when someone misrepresents or distorts another person’s argument, then attacks that distorted version as if they’ve refuted the original argument.
my analogy was made against my own experience in the crucible:
I asked you to show me the strawman, not to insult my intellect bud.
you claim you did, but never… you literally know nothing regarding fallacies bud, therefore I’ll just ignore whenever you mention this since you just refuse to admit or prove you actually understand…
now for the analogy itself: you and @Lombix_4 are too hung up on the randomness part, so I explain: enemy AI is not random in the the same sense, but for being obscure to the player (game is inconsistent regarding cues, and even attacks) and compound with multiple threats, it effectively behaves as random, so no all players will experience the same conditions. Since is too easy to fall off, and in the crucible foes on certain rooms are obscured partially or completely conditions are similar enough to my analogy to make it valid. But you all are missing the important part, this is an analogy, to my own experience, which is similar to the OP experience (IMO) and thus justify at least considering if the mechanics at play in the crucible are fair or not, and if skill alone determines success or failure. Now if for some of you failing every now and then despite not being your fault (misses or lack of skill) then is fine, but why do you impose that on others?
now, we got into a pointless discussion about fallacies (partially my fault) when you framed like so:
you misrepresent my analogy, creating a strawman of your own, than dismiss even trying to understand the analogous part of the argument, while making fun of me, effectively attacking me, thus I calling you out on ad hominem (fallacy where someone attacks the person making an argument, their character, motive, or some other attribute, instead of attacking the substance of the argument itself.)
in fact most all your counter arguments have been ad hominem against me. Uncalled for, unsubstantiated and more importantly veering off the topic of the thread…
I can practically do the same example with other games, in Sekiro the exact same mistake doesn’t make you die but you remain with little health.
And yet it is always a positioning error.
@BlackWaterPirate for someone who didn’t intend on debating, interacting, etc. you surely wasted enough time and energy… to be fair, I didn’t insult you tho, you did insult me… and insulting people requires no high levels of intelligence, in fact is the opposite, low intelligence individuals resort to name calling and insults BECAUSE they can’t reason logically… you can keep on affirming whatever you want it doesn’t make it true, and one just need to read through the posts to see who is who… as for the extent of our interactions, this will probably be the last, you seem to have no interest of admitting when wrong, nor trying to improve, you have little to offer, but its okay because there are many willing to an while being descent human beings CesspoolPirate is indeed very fitting I will say… XD