Bearadactyl

Nah, that's kind of the opposite of what I was talking about. What you are talking about seems to be an ages old time paradox where you cannot travel back to fix something if that thing was the only reason you invented the ability to travel back. Because if it was fixed, you never would have traveled and fixed it... meaning you never would have invented time travel to go back and fix it, but then that means what was wrong does in fact come to occur- and thus you have either this paradox or this time loop where the person is stuck in the cycle of time they cannot break out of.

What I am talking about is future sight, which is seeing all the connections, all the outcomes from different actions. In this way the equation changes. You are trying to change the future with actions in the present, instead of changing the present by altering actions in the past. If you know all the possible actions and then deliberately choose one, you 'change' the future. Or rather determine that a specific one come to pass. In this, the change is proactive rather than reactive. You see the options and then choose. In the other, a specific bad event had to have happened as the impetus to even attempt to change time in the first place. This view of time facing it in the opposite direction is free of the paradox that haunts the past altering method.

The idea from the first scenario, where time itself is determined that what has already happened remain constant is a flaw idea itself, in my opinion. If you COULD go back in time and stop an event from happening, does it really mean that events will shape so that something else will have to happen to create the desire to time travel? That's like saying, I saved a kid from drowning, only to have him die in a car accident on the way home from the incident. Sure it changes things that the family's car is on the same road but at a different time after the incident is avoided, but that doesn't mean that he necessarily has to die. Events changed. It just so happens that both now and 12 hours later the road from the lake is still without traffic. Suddenly, it never happened and the tragedy is avoided. The need for time travel never occurs, but it had to have happened for this outcome to occur, right?  Dat paradox.

The easiest way to reconcile this is the idea of infinite universes (string theory) that says that BOTH things DID happen. Just in parallel timelines. That the time and place you traveled to is not really the same as the timeline you left before. Literally, a separate time.

Future sight is so much less complicated (and superior) and basically amounts to being omniscient. Where if you determine that something should or should not happen, you would know exactly how to get it done and it would be done.

And then there are those stories of people with perfect memories. That for them to perfectly recall a a full day, they would lose a day in its re-experience.

tl;dr- don't fuck with the past. that's a stupid idea that I don't think works as the self-fulfilling loop stories and thought experiments have portrayed.

And I generally hate time travel as a plot device because they almost always go to stupid places I don't agree with. Just look at the most recent season of the Flash.

@Maelstrom You obviously know quite a lot about the genre, much more than me, and have thought about this quite a bit. So I recommend you try to read the story, if you have the time, as I feel that you're missing some fundamental parts of time-travel concepts that are presented in the story, as they are quite unlike any other interpretation of time-travel I've seen, and are unlike your interpretation of the story in your comment. 

If you decide to read it, at the very least it's a good story.

Or don't, if you don't want to... My only point is that as long as time-travel follows internally consistent rules, and not used as a macguffin, it can be a great vehicle for telling stories. 

Damn you made me feel old.

I don't know whether I should be angry or depressed. My default reaction is anger, but... I don't know, this just cuts really deep.

Ah, I know that feeling. Especially after losing someone yesterday.

Hugs?

I have noticed from myself, that i always respond to extremely bad news,  blankly.

While i tend to snap at the most unimportant things.

I felt blank until I saw my grandma's corpse in the coffin. Then I couldn't stop crying.

I think it's part of the first part of grieving, denial.

that escalated quickly

I've known the girl who started the site longer than the site was even an idea, she offered me the position solely because of how maturely she thinks I handled the situation.

All I did was call the admin out on their bullshit, and stood my ground without losing my temper. Which, if you know me, losing my temper is a common occurrence unfortunately.

Even if some of the memes that spawned there were unsavory. We have it to thank for great memes such as What Is Love, O Rly, and Roflcopter. It also assisted in Lazy Town becoming the meme it is today. But, for now, it seems like a vast wasteland of shit posts and a graveyard of long dead memes.

Some of us remember you YTMND, and some of us will never forget.

"ITS CUZ I AM" -how you should respond, every time

bish plz, I get symmetra and lucio POTGs all the time. Zarya and mei are really common for me as well.

You must be the minority, then. I'm a Mei main, and play Lucio very frequently; not to mention one of my friends is a Lucio main as well. I only get POTG, if I do the killing as Mei after ulting. And Lucio? Even with raw luck bumps off of the map, I have seen two or three POTGs at most. Also, Zarya has high damage capacity; making that point moot. On the subject of Symmetra, she also has high damage capacity; and with her range buff, she's broken. I don't even know why she's considered a support hero, her abilities make her more suited for Defense.

And, this complaint is a common enough complaint for a large enough portion of the fan base that Blizzard wants to change how POTG works. And, two examples, is hardly an argument when you consider there are twenty-two heroes total.

fair enough

my issues with HotS, as someone who has played both games, are as follows:

I've never played LoL or HotS at anything beyond a casual level, but I always felt with HotS that there was something I was missing. It's difficult to tell when you should go for an objective or pressure a lane and try to get something in return, especially with pusher heroes like Zagara. I also couldn't  tell where I was supposed to go in terms of lane, or predict where my opponents would go.

Small sidenote: My League main roles are generally toplane and support, and my the hero I played the most in HotS was Zagara, mostly 'cause I like SC2 the best out of blizzard's franchises.

Secondly, the damage just doesn't feel impactful. The feedback just isn't there for me; even with ranged carries or nukers, I don't feel like I'm doing enough damage, whereas in LoL or Smite (the moba I play the most) doing damage feels faster. combat feels a lot more bullet-spongy, kinda like battleborn vs. overwatch.

Lastly, team xp makes the game more snowbally and prevents you from seriously analyzing your contribution to fights, or detecting the other team's ace in order to focus them.

all this said, League has its flaws too. mostly, imo, in the playerbase. I don't feel like I can go into a game and expect to play with nice, friendly people. absolute dealbreaker imo, which is sad because I love the characters.

I like HoTS, because not only is the community not as awful as League's; but overall it's more casual. Honestly, lane isn't super important in HoTS, due to the way the different map objectives come in to play; really any hero can function just about anywhere.

And, the Team EXP is a good thing; because it promotes working toward the overall goal opposed to personal stats. It eliminates that one player being an ace, and it eliminates the showboating. If you don't combine the strengths of your chosen heroes, you lose. Overall, HoTS not only has more variety with its gameplay; but it lacks that "hardcore" mindset of League. HoTS is far more, chill out and play with your friends than League will ever be.

And, the combat flows honestly like WoW combat; which might be why I have no issue with it as a long time WoW player. It progresses better later game, of course, but overall I like the combat flow. No bullshit gibbing, everyone has a fighting chance if they play their hero right. And, as I mentioned prior, it forces team work.

And, having played the games each hero is from; and knowing their lore and background helps the "missing" feeling some folks have. I don't play a particular role, and main a few various heroes. Most from Diablo. Azmodon, Tyrael, Diablo himself, and I dabble with Zarya and Jaina.