Is "hardcore-viable" a meaningless descriptor?

Meaningless for you, but to some maybe not.

For some, HC viable could mean something like “has a very low probability of dying to all content in the hands of an average player despite making small mistakes”. This for instance is not meaningless because it would practically eliminate builds that easily die to dungeon bosses or Callagadra without perfect kiting for example, while builds like the top Avenger Warder would be on top of the list (hold Savagery, spam War Cry, maybe dodge Sunders, you survive 99.99%+ of the time).

Not everyone has the time and motivation to fully study the game to the very last monster skill database and loot table. But I’m sure nobody wants to die in Hardcore after a long investment. And those Hardcore players want to know whether or not they’ll likely die before committing on a build.

Did you mean to say “HC viable is subjective” instead?

1 Like

There is no common agreement on what “HC viable” should mean, especially for a character that has to go from level 1 to 100, through all the pitfalls of the leveling process, often with improvised gear.

If you want to start a discussion, on what that label should mean, I suggest → Gameplay Discussion

This isn’t the topic for that.

2 Likes

Then you say,

Which came after your rebuttal. I thought this wasn’t the topic?

A person literally asked you if the build was HC viable and you started a whole new topic about why you thought “HC viable is meaningless”. I reply to that and you tell me if I should start a new discussion I should go somewhere else… I feel like I’m being played here.

Since you already shared your rebuttal anyways, I’ll share mine as well.

Saying HC viable is meaningless because people can’t agree on its meaning is like saying a “pretty face” is meaningless because people can’t agree on what it looks like. I believe the word you meant to say was “subjective”, not “meaningless”. Subjective words still have meaning.

I split off your discussion, so now this is the topic for it :wink:

3 Likes

Thanks for the move, I support this. However I believe the title could be more accurate.
“Is hardcore viable a meaningless descriptor?”

Edit: just realized I could edit it myself lol

In the hands of a very careful and somewhat knowledgeable player, even a classless build is “HC viable” :wink:
I finished the HC Classless challenge with a pet build, and it was pretty easy tbh. So I’d say the build I made is HC viable in a way, but others will probably disagree and argue that only truly immortal builds that can beat every superboss are really HC viable.
So yeah it’s entirely subjective. But I wouldn’t say it’s meaningless, it just depends on the context of what the build in question should and can achieve.

1 Like

Agreed on how subjective it is. And this is subject to change :slight_smile:
Who knows, we might establish one day what hc-viable objectively means, especially regarding build inquiries and ranking.

Now is not the day. But it is certainly not meaningless, indeed

I said the label is meaningless.

Because it is slapped on many different things, including (as noted above) absolute meme-builds.

Slapping it on a level 100 build with full purple set gear and great green affixes is easy. Every build can be HC-viable, when it’s geared like that.
Maybe add one extra circuit breaker to avoid freak accidents.

Slapping it on a leveling guide is much harder. If I don’t die during the leveling process, does that make it HC-viable?
But the someone else might forget about resistances, walk into Voldrak, get shotgunned by Valdaran, list goes on and on. So, does “HC-viable” mean “fool-proof”?

If someone doesn’t have the time to restart, or the motivation to learn, play Softcore.
Nothing wrong with that at all.
Every build will die eventually, if you play it for long enough or push it hard enough.

To me “HC viable” on a build is meaningless, because it’s not about the build.
It’s a mindset, and that mindset includes acceptance of loss, learning encounters and not making dumb mistakes.

And most of the time I want to be able to fool around and make dumb mistakes, so I usually play softcore. :+1:

2 Likes

Wait, are you saying the act of slapping said label on builds is meaningless because said label is subjective?

“HC viable” is not a label I generally slap on builds, because it’s meaningless.

So you meant to say, “because it’s meaningless to do so.”?

I said the label “HC Viable” is meaningless.
It has no meaning, because it has no clear or even agreed upon definition.
Objectively not well-defined.

If you want to pointlessly argue semantics, may I recommend reddit?

1 Like

It has no meaning, because it has no clear or even agreed upon definition.

That’s not what “having no meaning”/meaningless means. Meaningless =/= subjective.
Meaningless means having no purpose, significance, or reason.
Subjective is what you actually explained over and over again.

If you want to pointlessly argue semantics, may I recommend reddit?

Ironic, given how you were the first to argue an entire paragraph about it when a fan of yours just wanted to know whether your build was safe for hc or not.

Also why do you keep shoo-ing me away just for questioning your wording? First to a different thread, which was granted, and now to Reddit?

I don’t know what the label means. All I can gather is that you probably won’t get one-shot, hopefully. But other than that I have no clue :person_shrugging: the can-be-played-drunk label is better imho :rofl:

3 Likes

At risk of inserting myself into someone else’s slap fight, Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (as well as Cambridge and several others) provides two definitions for meaningless:

  1. ​the fact of having no purpose or reason
  2. the fact of not having a meaning that is easy to understand

Any phrase using the word “viable” automatically fits the second definition here, because the word is used in so many different ways that it doesn’t actually communicate anything on its own.

By definition, literally all builds are hardcore viable, because Badge of Perseverance is possible and having any amount of points anywhere is better than that. Some people reject anything except the best from “viable”. Somewhere in between is “the mythical average player could reasonably expect to clear Lokarr and SR20 first try, if they don’t make silly mistakes”, which is probably close to a reasonable definition. But you can’t tell which of those someone means from just the word “viable”.

1 Like

At risk of inserting myself into someone else’s slap fight

Don’t worry, there’s no slap fight and you have points worthy of being dissected. Whether they’re correct/valid, I still don’t know, let’s find out.

  1. the fact of not having a meaning that is easy to understand

Thank you for pointing out this alternate definition. I was not aware. I made a quick Google search and found that your source is this one, from Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries.

Turns out Oxford Learner’s offers 3 possible meanings, the one that you didn’t mention being “not considered important”. But I digress, let’s move on to your main points.

Any phrase using the word “viable” automatically fits the second definition here, because the word is used in so many different ways that it doesn’t actually communicate anything on its own.

Correct me if I’m wrong, your argument goes as follows:
Any phrase using “[hardcore] viable” automatically implies that “it doesn’t have a meaning that is easy to understand.” This is because the phrase is used in so many ways. In other words, the phrase is subjective.

More simply and formally (putting the cause in the front for more clarity), "The phrase, ‘hardcore viable’, is subjective and therefore it automatically follows that it doesn’t have an easy to understand meaning.

I disagree with how automatic that is.

It essentially argues, “If a phrase is subjective, then it doesn’t have a meaning that is easy to understand.”

One common counter-example to disprove this claim is the phrase, “You are beautiful.”
It is subjective, but it is easy to understand.

Did I understand your argument correctly? Were my counter-arguments clear? Feel free to ask questions.

No, those are not the same. Take your example of beautiful. It’s not used in many different ways. It’s used for when someone finds something pleasing to look at more or less. And yes it’s subjective, because it’s an opinion.

Viable might also be an opinion, but it’s also not well defined what someone means when they say: “I think this is viable.” When I search for a definition of viable the first thing it tells me is (not my formatting):

Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: synonym: possible.

So if we substitute possible for viable then it becomes: “possible to play in hardcore” which… doesn’t mean anything, because you can play anything you want in hardcore.

Most likely when someone says “it’s hardcore viable” they intent for it to be stronger than just ‘possible’, but who knows what they mean or what their version of “continuing effectiveness” is. Thus without any further clarification the label pretty much meaningless.

Viable might also be an opinion, but it’s also not well defined what someone means when they say: “I think this is viable.

Your whole rebuttal falls apart because you literally described viable as something subjective. Besides, the topic refers to “hardcore viable”, not just “viable”.

Most likely when someone says “it’s hardcore viable” they intent for it to be stronger than just ‘possible’

You just contradicted yourself by giving a most likely meaning of “hardcore viable”. It’s not meaningless. You’re actually supporting me here.

Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: synonym : possible .
So if we substitute possible for viable then it becomes: “possible to play in hardcore” which… doesn’t mean anything

You just committed a definist fallacy by redefining “viable” into something (among many possible definitions) that supported your argument the most, even though the very first thing that comes when you google “define viable” is not “possible”, but rather,
image

Edit: Heck, I Googled even further and did not find a single source defining “viable” as “possible”.


ToniCogin,

I hope you’ll forgive my bluntness.

There’s a bunch of people who are spending their time on the weekend to tell you a thing.

And it looks like you’re too busy trying to parse out their language (which is inexact at the best of times, much less when you have non-native speakers). And that’s at the cost of trying to understand what they’re trying to communicate.

The phrase “HC viable” is semantically meaningless as a yes/no boolean because there’s no official definition that everyone will correctly use. It’s not subjective in the sense of “I think X is the best genre of music”.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there’s the One True Hardcore Viable build. Let’s call it a 100 on the scale of 1-100.

Let’s also assume for the sake of argument that we can now scale every build against that as an objective thing.

Say we have X build that is objectively an 80 on the HC Viable scale. Is that HC Viable?
How about a 60? How about a 76? Is that meaningfully different vs a 75?

Even with absolute best case scenarios in the assumptions, everyone will have different thresholds. And people will have different opinions based on things like playstyle preferences, keyboard/mouse quality, play environment, etc.

The actual question that we should be thinking about is “what level of HC viability is this build?” as a tiering system. Not a boolean yes/no with heavily preference-based thresholds.

1 Like

Literally what “subjective” implies.

I don’t mind the bluntness. I’m blunt myself. As long as there’s no personal attack, I’m good.

i’m with Sudoku on this
either you’re trying to argue semantics, which is pointless, or you’re not getting on board with what he’s saying (and imo what he’s saying is right, also semantics aside)

this is literally all it has to be

and Sudoku even explained why earlier, which is not subjective

When you buy a bottle of chemicals at your hardware store it will have a label on the back, be it caustic etc
This label has a clear and defined meaning, it is not just easily “universally” understood, but serves a purpose, in this case as a warning etc.

If/when a build gets a “label” it applies a broad(er) even if not equally universally applicable meaning to said character as that chemical caustic symbol.
But because this is a game, with a ton of variables, what’s behind the label might not have the same guarantee as that bottle.
Because just like Sudoku said, (all players are not equal), just because he, or i, or you can do X, and remember to do X or account for X, does not mean it applies in an actual broader sense to other people, but those people will still see the label and get instilled some sense of assurance “because something/the label said X”.

But when that label then doesn’t apply to them, it becomes meaningless, because it does not serve the label’s function or actually applies anything “broad”(er) than that subjectivity which you for some reason lament Sudoku for.

We don’t even need HC guides for this, we see these drastic swings in play already in well established softcore builds where a build has “a” label, someone can’t accomplish what the label claims and complains.
The monumental difference is that a label of being able to kill a Celestial on softcore vs a build clearing HC/“being HC viable” changes drastically in outcome or rather required outcome, because you’re now in one way or another, (unlike SC celestial fight you can retry to meet the label), in a fully 1x pass/fail scenario just with a ton more variables.
So a player/guide being able to pass through 1-100 on HC does not equal another player able to do so, nor even able to so following the guide, and the label would then be “lying” because it didn’t apply, but it wasn’t lying in another scenario, so it becomes “meaningless” in both ways, there wasn’t a “universal” established meaning of the label(among community or whatever)to convey what it actually means, and there was no “truth” in the meaning either because hey these players didn’t make it through HC, the latter just reinforcing the former and you have a double ouroboros of meaningless going on the way things work(currently)

“the label has no purpose” - why does the label have no purpose?, it(the label) is not well-defined = the HC viable label is meaningless

yes, it can be that simple/what Sudoku said works out “even per your own semantics twists”

it’s not based on subjective shenanigans, but because objectively the label does not do its job or a job as “label”, the words lose their own meaning

Do you want to learn, or do you want to win an argument on the Internet?

1 Like