Quality level names poll

[mmmPI]

I have no such confusion. Please tell me how I miscommunicated so I can communicate better because we have a massive disconnection.

Here :

and no one would ever consider a piece of software 'legendary or epic.

We are not trying to name a piece of software, but rather physical items.

[FuryoftheStars]

I'm not sure if this is made by "blacksmith" or "factory", i'm not sure of the name if it's a blacksmith that work in a factory, as it seem to be the case for this mass produced legendary musical instrument made of metal :
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/arts ... years.html
According to Jon Cohan’s book “Zildjian: A History of the Legendary Cymbal Makers,”
I wasn't sure it was ok to use the word legendary there, I have documented a little and i can say for sure that they are not sarcastic when using the word legendary.

I know it's possible to think that the word legendary doesn't apply to the item only to the blacksmiths or their factory, not their products, that's impossible to make the same mistake when looking at this website though : https://www.legendary-car.com/ , since we have car in factorio, we could make legendary cars .
Maybe it's just some car sellers that didn't know "legendary" is sarcastic only i thought, but then those motorbike seller also used the same word : https://www.legendary-parts.com/en as if they think the joke is funny x)

While I don't think these are attempts at being "funny" or "sarcastic", at least in the case of the cars, this is an attempt to stand out from the rest and capitalize on the idea and concept of the word to today's society. It's marketing, pure and simple. I would be very comfortable saying that the "Legendary" quality tier system is a complete invention of video games and the only reason we see it out in public is because marketing is attempting to draw that parralel to the customer base.

They are not the norm, though. That much, to me, is clear.

I do not appreciate repeating myself to clear up any schism that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

This is not helpful and only serves to inflame.

[mmmPI]

While I don't think these are attempts at being "funny" or "sarcastic", at least in the case of the cars, this is an attempt to stand out from the rest and capitalize on the idea and concept of the word to today's society. It's marketing, pure and simple. I would be very comfortable saying that the "Legendary" quality tier system is a complete invention of video games and the only reason we see it out in public is because marketing is attempting to draw that parralel to the customer base.

But who doesn't know of Excalibur ? that's not the only one, even in the old french epic litterature there is a sword that's called Durendal refered to as being legendary : https://www.ancient-origins.net/history ... dal-002869, i'm pretty sure the trend started even before And that it's the other other way around, it's the video games that used "legendary" for their thing while the word was used beforehand for things related to legends, like swords but not only

I think it was abused to the point of being a cliche and has some resulting fun value, I'd still use Q5 when i don't want to emphasize that the thing is LEeGeNdDaRry.

They are not the norm, though. That much, to me, is clear.

The point that i thought was a flawed reasonning was saying that because playing factorio is similar to software engineering for some players it would make sense to give to the tanks or turrets or artillery shells or shotguns and other items in the game adjectives to describe their quality coming from the vocabulary of software engineering.

It is unrelated.

[XT-248]

I do not appreciate repeating myself to clear up any schism that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

This is not helpful and only serves to inflame.

I am describing what I am feeling and am exhausted by repeating myself despite unambiguous communication.

How is that going to inflame anyone else?


Look at my posting history for the Factorio forum; whenever I post, there is an inevitable disagreement resulting from a difference in opinion. It shouldn't be a point of contention that people have different views.

Worse yet, one of the implications of 'confusion and not knowing what legendary means' is a not-so-nice attitude to take, given what it would mean for the intended target audience.


The disagreement has occurred at an alarming frequency on other platforms—not just here. I came here to be among friendlier, like-mind engineers. What do I get?

[FuryoftheStars]

While I don't think these are attempts at being "funny" or "sarcastic", at least in the case of the cars, this is an attempt to stand out from the rest and capitalize on the idea and concept of the word to today's society. It's marketing, pure and simple. I would be very comfortable saying that the "Legendary" quality tier system is a complete invention of video games and the only reason we see it out in public is because marketing is attempting to draw that parralel to the customer base.

But who doesn't know of Excalibur ? that's not the only one, even in the old french epic litterature there is a sword that's called Durendal refered to as being legendary : https://www.ancient-origins.net/history ... dal-002869, i'm pretty sure the trend started even before And that it's the other other way around, it's the video games that used "legendary" for their thing while the word was used beforehand for things related to legends, like swords but not only

Yes, but they weren't referring to quality with that, but rather their deeds/use. It does follow that they would be of top notch quality, but the term itself was not originally meant in that capacity.

They are not the norm, though. That much, to me, is clear.

The point that i thought was a flawed reasonning was saying that because playing factorio is similar to software engineering for some players it would make sense to give to the tanks or turrets or artillery shells or shotguns and other items in the game adjectives to describe their quality coming from the vocabulary of software engineering.

It is unrelated.

Agreed, however, I don't believe that was the argument XT was attempting to make here. Instead, I believe they were just attempting to draw another parralel against epic/legendary/etc, which I believe you are both in agreement on.

----------------------------------------

I do not appreciate repeating myself to clear up any schism that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

This is not helpful and only serves to inflame.

I am describing what I am feeling and am exhausted by repeating myself despite unambiguous communication.

How is that going to inflame anyone else?

It is one of the intricacies of social interaction that I've learned over the years, sometimes the hard way. Saying things like that can (not necessarily will) make matters worse. It is actually slightly rude. Doesn't matter if it is true, or even if you are absolutely correct.

Look at my posting history for the Factorio forum; whenever I post, there is an inevitable disagreement resulting from a difference in opinion. It shouldn't be a point of contention that people have different views.

I am well aware of your post history here. I am often one of those in disagreement with you.

[mmmPI]

The point that i thought was a flawed reasonning was saying that because playing factorio is similar to software engineering for some players it would make sense to give to the tanks or turrets or artillery shells or shotguns and other items in the game adjectives to describe their quality coming from the vocabulary of software engineering.

It is unrelated.

Agreed, however, I don't believe that was the argument XT was attempting to make here.

That's probably some miscommunication then because the sentence read as :

I am with TROPtastic, and no one would ever consider a piece of software 'legendary or epic.' Being Epic on a scale (relating to lines of code/complexity)? Potentially, yes. 'Legendary?' Only in a sarcastic manner.

There is a direct comparaison between the number of line of code in a software and the quality of a manufactured product. That make no sense to me. It doesn't matter wether or not anyone would consider a piece of softaware legendary or epic when considering if the name apply to product made in factories in the game factorio.

Beside obvisouly the existing https://legendarysoftwarelabs.com/.

Look at my posting history for the Factorio forum; whenever I post, there is an inevitable disagreement resulting from a difference in opinion. It shouldn't be a point of contention that people have different views.

Is it a point of contention ? you asked where you did some miscommunication and i indicated to help you improve your arguments with logic.

[FuryoftheStars]

That's probably some miscommunication then because the sentence read as :

I am with TROPtastic, and no one would ever consider a piece of software 'legendary or epic.' Being Epic on a scale (relating to lines of code/complexity)? Potentially, yes. 'Legendary?' Only in a sarcastic manner.

There is a direct comparaison between the number of line of code in a software and the quality of a manufactured product. That make no sense to me. It doesn't matter wether or not anyone would consider a piece of softaware legendary or epic when considering if the name apply to product made in factories in the game factorio.

All I can say is that was not, and still is not, how I interpret that. *shrug*

Beside obvisouly the existing https://legendarysoftwarelabs.com/.

That still feels like one-off marketing.

[mmmPI]

All I can say is that was not, and still is not, how I interpret that. *shrug*

I can understand that your interpretation differs from mine, to me interpretation is more subjective,if i was to try and interpret what i read, i could be getting to conclusions that goes beyond the written words which may end up considered judgmental by the receiving end. That's why i limited myself to say that there seem to be some confusion and promptly tried to dissipate it by indicating my understanding and the sentence that lead me to this opinion.

My understanding being that i read a reasonning containing a sillogistic fallacy.

For instance, from the premises some A are B, some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C.[18][19] However, this does not follow according to the rules of classical logic. For instance, while some cats (A) are black things (B), and some black things (B) are televisions (C), it does not follow from the parameters that some cats (A) are televisions (C)

In the form of :
A"playing factorio makes players feel like doing software engineering"
B"no- one in software engineering uses the term legendary to talk about their software"
C" therefore the term legendary shouldn't be used to called things made by the assembly machines in factorio".

or in other words :

1)A is sometimes B
2)B cannot be C
therefore
3)A cannot be C

I am not sure where would be the error in interpretation that i made when trying to assess the argument presented if the one i detailed just earlier again for clarity is not the one that was meant to be received.

That still feels like one-off marketing.

I share that feel. That is not removing the flaw in previous syllogism to me.

Here is another example of electronic musical instrument called legendary by its users : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaiMjwF0a64

Still not adressing the flaw in the reasonning, just i thought more constructive material to share regarding the validity of the second premisse.

[laxesandz]

I'm also fine with the RPG flavoured quality names, I've seen the uproar against them, but they're awfully universally understood. they might not be "immersive", but they have the advantage that most people will understand them.

[FuryoftheStars]

I'm also fine with the RPG flavoured quality names, I've seen the uproar against them, but they're awfully universally understood. they might not be "immersive", but they have the advantage that most people will understand them.

It should be noted that for this, there is currently a run-off poll up: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=111779

[XT-248]

That's probably some miscommunication then because the sentence read as :

There is a direct comparaison between the number of line of code in a software and the quality of a manufactured product. That make no sense to me. It doesn't matter wether or not anyone would consider a piece of softaware legendary or epic when considering if the name apply to product made in factories in the game factorio.

Is it a point of contention ? you asked where you did some miscommunication and i indicated to help you improve your arguments with logic.

Your understanding of what I did and didn't say is off-basis.


When you think of me describing a physical, tangible object (as in the quotation you made), I was describing the non-tangible process/technique/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that improved from a Q1-only mass-production line to semi-better mass-production that occasionally yield Q2 and Q3.

Describing this process/technique as a quote Legendary joke unquote of a physical, tangible object (cars/motorcycles/parts) does not conform to the concept of improving an assembly line to make a better iron plate in Factorio 2.0 through the usage of modules. The same remains true of TROPtastic and mine examples.


Software Development goes through the same cycle of improvement to make software better. The concept of tweaking the Factory layout to make it better is much more common to TROPtastic and mine examples than a person's relationship with their car/motorcycle.


Some examples include but are not limited to: refactoring the main bus to allow more throughput for non-Q1 products, adding quality modules to all furnaces, etc...


The issue was one of understanding my point. There is nothing wrong with my logic in the first place, and I do not need anyone else to help with my arguments.

[mmmPI]

The issue was one of understanding my point.

Maybe, i'm still under the impression that you are comiting the same logic mistake, presenting the 3 same ideas in a different order. I must not have understood your newer explanations

The reasonning that conclude :

If a piece of software and quality control of mass production do not deserve the 'legendary' treatment, then Factorio's official naming scheme shouldn't.

To me is flawed , the comparaison is invalid and called an illict major :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicit_major

This fallacy has the following argument form:

All A are B
No C are A
Therefore, no C are B

Example:

All dogs are mammals
No cats are dogs
Therefore, no cats are mammals

What you keep asserting is roughly : " i have an argument against legendary being used in factorio".
( no "legendary" (C) should be applied to (B)(things from factorio) )

Why ?

Because no software deserve it ( what i quoted )
( because nothing called legendary(C) is a software (A))

So far there is no relation between A and B, yet you seem assertive in the conclusion against legendary, you keep repeating it, what are your arguments that make the link between factorio and software programming that would justify it ? :

I am sure some of you would argue, but what does software programming have to do with quality control in mass production in Factorio?! I will state the obvious: Many consider gaming in Factorio similar to software programming.

Software making(A) feels like playing factorio (B)

That make the link between A and B, and now we have all the pieces of the example from wikipedia of the mistake in reasonning.

When you think of me describing a physical, tangible object (as in the quotation you made), I was describing the non-tangible process/technique/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that improved from a Q1-only mass-production line to semi-better mass-production that occasionally yield Q2 and Q3.

That doesn't make it better. You are describing a technique that is used by players when playing, you are describing "improving one's factory", you are therefore not changing the structure of the reasonning, you have actually repeated the exact same thing for me.

The structure of the reasonning is still as invalid as before for me for the same reason. That's not a point of contention i hope, it can happen that people are not convinced by your arguments, maybe my logic is different, maybe it's not worth your time to keep repeating your point of view in an attempt to convince me because you said you didn't like repeating yourself, and i am under the impression that you do not realize when your sentence are (for my logic) similar despite my attempts at highlighting why for me i consider them as being repetition of the same argument. Argument which doesn't adress what i consider a flaw in logic which subsquently prevent me from being convinced by it. It is a bit saddening for me to see your attempts, that i feel are bound to fail at convincing me if you don't see now how there are not getting better from one iteration to the next.
Maybe you can convince other person that will read those long message you send quoting me.

[Koub]

[Koub] Not much on topic - if anything - has been added to the debate in the past couple months, I think the thread has outlived its purpose. Locking it.