As you know I think FDev have utterly dropped the ball on in-game discoverability generally and PP 2.0 rules specifically, so I agree with you.
BUT I am looking at a thread where people are:
- creating solid, testable hypotheses
- TESTING THEM
- drawing conclusions, including a minimum viable set of rules which Ian gave in the very comment you are replying to.
And some of the "minimum set of viable rules" I've seen contradicted by other posts on the subject; I don't know which are correct.
The fact that the playerbase is needing to do this sort of detective work is ridiculous, but I think that we agree on.
We seem to also have a different definition of "solid hypotheses", most of what I've seen have been more akin to guesses. Ian was referencing something that seemed better though, but I've missed that lengthy data driven conversation. You did notice the "from what I've seen" qualifier there didn't you?
You at least did understand I was replying to two different messages though, right?
That is the opposite of pure guessing and I really don't think anyone should denigrate the amount of work the community have put into it so far. In fact that
supports your point!
There's been an awful lot of constructive
Principium Contradictionis and almost no post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There has been one case of someone misspelling "propter" whilst trying to look clever though.
Oh dear I made a
typo, what an utter disaster; I salute your superiority in never having made one yourself. But in your effort to look clever, you might want to brush up on
principium contradictionis; though point taken, don't use dead languages because someone will get their panties in a bunch.
Hey, it's great the community is willing to do a job they shouldn't need to do, and doing it for free.
But most of the comments on the subject that I have seen have been along the lines of "I did X and it worked, so X is the secret requirement". If you don't consider that to be an example of "after this, therefore because of this", then that is your prerogative I guess. Or more likely, since you acknowledged
some propter hoc, but considered the vast majority to not have been, we've been looking at different sets of posts.
There's also a big difference in my opinion between making hypotheses and testing them in a concerted way to figure out the parameters, and stating hypotheses to someone who just wants to do exploration for merits. Latter is what I'm criticizing, but I probably could have phrased things in a way that made that more apparent.