Ursan is the MOST 'for everyone' skill in the whole game and the LESS solo one.
A single ursan is just monster bait. Ursan require parties.
It could be even more by ignoreing character's profession, but that's for another thread.
They do not want to prevent peope from getting real cash, just to prevet SOME people from getting it doing something solo and without trading with other players.
I added the wiki link to the explanation they gave for LS when they added it, an explanation that is still valid. Just seadch and read it again. If you don't agree with it, read it again. And again and again until either you understand it or your eyes bleed.
'Casual farming'? I was talking about NORMAL PLAYING.
That is: Making quests, missions, hm missions, vanquish, etc.
Can't you take out 'farming' of you mind?
Should Lootscaling be removed after the new Rtm policy?
MithranArkanere
Creeping Carl
[QUOTE=Loviatar]
Heya Loviatar 
Yes, I forgot about the already accumulated super hoard of wealth which make its even more mind blowingly ridiculous that they can stand on their piles of treasure and still yell about how poor they are.
It's hilarious though, that they just couldnt help themselves by slipping up and bragging how much they're making and giving themselves more rope to hang themselves with.
Quote:
|
DONT FORGET THIS a million a week is CURRENT income not counting the super hoard of wealth already accumulated over the years from all those farming exploits before Anet started closing them. as i said it is a totally money/greed MINDSET that does not even recognize it is a complete abnormalityfrom the supermajority playerbase who bought a GAME and are playing it for fun not GW:TYCOON |
Yes, I forgot about the already accumulated super hoard of wealth which make its even more mind blowingly ridiculous that they can stand on their piles of treasure and still yell about how poor they are.
It's hilarious though, that they just couldnt help themselves by slipping up and bragging how much they're making and giving themselves more rope to hang themselves with.
Mr.Bimble
Remove loot scaling,bring back farming.....
MithranArkanere
At least I hope that all of you know that no matte how right you think you are, they are not removing LS.
Malice Black
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
At least I hope that all of you know that no matte how right you think you are, they are not removing LS.
|
Stop complaining about being poor and actually play the damn game.
Creeping Carl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr.Bimble
Remove loot scaling,bring back farming.....
|
reetkever
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
Ursan is the MOST 'for everyone' skill in the whole game and the LESS solo one.
A single ursan is just monster bait. Ursan require parties. It could be even more by ignoreing character's profession, but that's for another thread. They do not want to prevent peope from getting real cash, just to prevet SOME people from getting it doing something solo and without trading with other players. I added the wiki link to the explanation they gave for LS when they added it, an explanation that is still valid. Just seadch and read it again. If you don't agree with it, read it again. And again and again until either you understand it or your eyes bleed. 'Casual farming'? I was talking about NORMAL PLAYING. That is: Making quests, missions, hm missions, vanquish, etc. Can't you take out 'farming' of you mind? |
The difference between Hardcore farmers and casual farmers is that hardcore farmers aim to become rich, while casual farmers don't care about how rich they are, as long as they can do fun stuff. Oh, and I'm not sure if you claimed that Ursan is a skill for everyone, but it is clearly not.
Ursan is one of these skills that requires 1337ness to work. If you don't have rank 9 or 10, you won't be getting any parties with it. And tell me, how does one that only plays a few hours a day and does NOT waste their time farming for Norn points all the time get rank 9 or 10?
And even IF they managed to get it, finding a good party would still mean trouble, and the farm run itself is not profitable for the regular gamer, since no direct cash comes from it.
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
It's hilarious though, that they just couldnt help themselves by slipping up and bragging how much they're making and giving themselves more rope to hang themselves with.
|
Since you can't even see where different parties are standing concerning the issue much less understand their arguments, you're just contributing background noise here. The same goes for Loviatar.
Loviatar
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
my statement was that as poor as you claim to be you are in the very stratospheric high end even if you are poor compared to the top 50 richest.
you are not against LS i understand .
that you consider yourself poor while being in the top of the tiniest fraction of the playerbase is to me simply uncomprehensible.
and no, having started in early beta and played ever since casually i am not poor.
i have not only everything i need but everything i WANT as well.
i have spent less than 4k since wintersday having fun in all 3 noob areas having fun giving FREE help
i play for fun not profit.
Creeping Carl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
What is the most hilarious thing here is that you are so out cold in this discussion that you don't even understand that I am not asking for LS to be removed. I have expressed this very clearly and many times over in the last couple of pages but no matter how many times I repeat it, it doesn't seem to register on planet C-Carl, whichever imaginary orbit it happens to be occupying.
Since you can't even see where different parties are standing concerning the issue much less understand their arguments, you're just contributing background noise here. The same goes for Loviatar. |
So gee, you might not be asking for LS to be removed in so many words but you sure arent pro LS. Either that or you're severely confused about what your stance is. Heck, here's one of your "I'm not against LS" posts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
Do you see how you contradict yourself there? Without LS you have the choice of (1) either playing 'normally' and easily getting everything that you need to complete a campaign, or (2) farming or (3) trading for better income to get some vanity items. LS makes farming a non-option, ergo, it removes choice. Removing LS wouldn't force anybody to farm gold to be able to complete the game, claiming that is just silly. It would force people to do some work for vanity items, though. You don't want people to have a choice of doing something more profitable than you do, and that's fine and dandy. Just be aware what it is called.
|
Cab Tastic
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
I have well over a million gold in the bank, half a dozen sets of 15k armor, and a lot of other swank loot.
And I've never solo farmed a day in my life. See how utterly ignorant you look when you assume things? You lost all your credit right there IMO. |
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
Reading your past few dozen posts, it's clear that you're not pro LS, at least, your posts sure don't reflect it. You've said that LS makes everyone too poor and severely limits options. And you've called pro LS people communists. And there are plenty of your posts that are anti-LS in nature.
So gee, you might not be asking for LS to be removed in so many words but you sure arent pro LS. Either that or you're severely confused about what your stance is. Heck, here's one of your "I'm not against LS" posts. |
Phineas
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
Isn't a million enough to get an obsidian set?
Shouldn't that take 3 months or so? |
...Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
Quote:
Where do we have to sign? |
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
If you had a shred of competence to discuss the issue you'd know that it's common ownership of means of production. Since every player owns all the necessary means of production (a character and its equipment), you conclusively fail.
|
Nobody is suggesting there should be a classless society or lack of social mobility. You make a million gold per week and nobody's complaining that it's not fair that everyone doesnt make even close to that.
Please... address this.
Creeping Carl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
This was a very GeorgeBush-esque moment you gave us: You're either with us, or against us
|
Nice try though. Keep on trolling.
EDIT: And judging by all the posts responding to him, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Fay Vert
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bryant Again
Forums aren't real good indicators of playerbases.
I know that that isn't your point, just merely pointing that out for others advocating that this forum represents the Guild Wars playerbase. |
The real question is how representative they are, to determine this you need two things, you need a large enough sample size and you need a representative demographic mix. Well, statisticians generally regard sample sizes of 30 or more as being good enough to do mathematical (probablistic) calculations on so we are alright there. The tricky one is how representative the demographic is. Is there something about the forum population that could scew the results.
Well, GW is an online game, so there is no technology block. You have to be able to read, as the age rating for GW is teen, this shouldn't be a problem but I know there are many younger players, which although able to read would not visit a site full of text, not sure what proportion that is of players. Finally there is the very casual player that has no interest other than playing the game itself. This may well be the thing that makes the poll unrepresentative, although the poll is anonymous, so lurker friendly, it can't really represent the true demographic of GW players.
However, just because the results may be scewed doesn't make them invalid. Any scew will have a percentage bias on the results, it would take a monstrously massive scew to overturn a 70% to13% opinion.
So although the poll is almost certainly not representative it is very indicative.
Phineas
Should the cake lovers be excluded when looking at the actual for's and againt's? Making it more like 83% to 16% (at time of writing)
Fay Vert
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phineas
Should the cake lovers be excluded when looking at the actual for's and againt's? Making it more like 83% to 16% (at time of writing)
|
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fay Vert
yes I am fully aware of the limitation of forum polls to represent opinion, which is precisely why I used the word indicative. Polls are indicative, but only indicative.
The real question is how representative they are, to determine this you need two things, you need a large enough sample size and you need a representative demographic mix. Well, statisticians generally regard sample sizes of 30 or more as being good enough to do mathematical (probablistic) calculations on so we are alright there. The tricky one is how representative the demographic is. Is there something about the forum population that could scew the results. Well, GW is an online game, so there is no technology block. You have to be able to read, as the age rating for GW is teen, this shouldn't be a problem but I know there are many younger players, which although able to read would not visit a site full of text, not sure what proportion that is of players. Finally there is the very casual player that has no interest other than playing the game itself. This may well be the thing that makes the poll unrepresentative, although the poll is anonymous, so lurker friendly, it can't really represent the true demographic of GW players. However, just because the results may be scewed doesn't make them invalid. Any scew will have a percentage bias on the results, it would take a monstrously massive scew to overturn a 70% to13% opinion. So although the poll is almost certainly not representative it is very indicative. |
Where to begin picking this whopper apart?
1) A sample size of 30 or more? Statisticians? Huh? The minimum sample size necessary for validity is a function of how large the group is that's being polled. 30 may be a good enough sample size to measure 80 people. But is it large enough to accurately measure a group of 3,000? 300,000? 3 million? Absolutely not!
2) Back to the question of who is voting... It's people that read, and quite possibly post on forums. This is a tiny subset of GW players, not a representative sample across the board. Obviously .001% of GW players are coming here and voting, otherwise we'd have hundreds of thousands of votes on each side.
How many casual (read: don't play/care much) players read forums? How many oblivious new players are here?
How many uber-hour highly invested players are here? Who's more likely to show up here on this bitter, hostile thread (and vote): a new player, a very infrequent player, a female player, young players, or the 25+ hour per week gold farmer?
Unless you're getting a proportional cross-section of all these groups (and more), then this poll is completely invalid horse puckey.
3) It would not take a "monstrous skew" to overturn 70 to 13 voting. All it takes is polling heavily within one tiny subset that fits a certain profile and you get this invalid bunk.
4) Your logic is utter failure when you admit that the poll doesn't represent GW players and then say the results are still meaningful. You're basically saying "okay, so the poll doesn't mean anything, but it still tells us everything we want to know."
You say "this poll is not representative, but it is indicative". All it's indicative of is that 69% of a tiny, non-representative segment of people have a certain opinion.
What the fark? Your logic is atrocious.
PS - You're misusing the term "skew". You can't even spell it. "Indicative" isn't used appropriately either. And for the love of Lyssa, "probablistic" isn't a word...
Fay Vert
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
blah blah blah
|
guildwars hero22
yes give back to those who are loyal remove loot scalling!
Creeping Carl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fay Vert
Quote:
|
Amazing.
Dr Strangelove
This thread is ridiculous. I could make a poll saying "Given the recent wave of penguin migrations near Antarctic research stations, should loot scaling be removed?", and I guarantee everyone would vote yes.
Cab Tastic
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
The above post is utter ignorance. You're just making things up. Total fabrication.
Where to begin picking this whopper apart? 1) A sample size of 30 or more? Statisticians? Huh? The minimum sample size necessary for validity is a function of how large the group is that's being polled. 30 may be a good enough sample size to measure 80 people. But is it large enough to accurately measure a group of 3,000? 300,000? 3 million? Absolutely not! 2) Back to the question of who is voting... It's people that read, and quite possibly post on forums. This is a tiny subset of GW players, not a representative sample across the board. Obviously .001% of GW players are coming here and voting, otherwise we'd have hundreds of thousands of votes on each side. How many casual (read: don't play/care much) players read forums? How many oblivious new players are here? How many uber-hour highly invested players are here? Who's more likely to show up here on this bitter, hostile thread (and vote): a new player, a very infrequent player, a female player, young players, or the 25+ hour per week gold farmer? Unless you're getting a proportional cross-section of all these groups (and more), then this poll is completely invalid horse puckey. 3) It would not take a "monstrous skew" to overturn 70 to 13 voting. All it takes is polling heavily within one tiny subset that fits a certain profile and you get this invalid bunk. 4) Your logic is utter failure when you admit that the poll doesn't represent GW players and then say the results are still meaningful. You're basically saying "okay, so the poll doesn't mean anything, but it still tells us everything we want to know." You say "this poll is not representative, but it is indicative". All it's indicative of is that 69% of a tiny, non-representative segment of people have a certain opinion. What the fark? Your logic is atrocious. PS - You're misusing the term "skew". You can't even spell it. "Indicative" isn't used appropriately either. And for the love of Lyssa, "probablistic" isn't a word... |
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#factors
It takes less of a sample size than you would think to get an indication of public opinion.
Oh and please stick to the debate instead of criticising forum members spelling. Thats pretty low.
Arv X
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cab Tastic
Try this link
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#factors It takes less of a sample size than you would think to get an indication of public opinion. Oh and please stick to the debate instead of criticising forum members spelling. Thats pretty low. |
Guru is FAR from a random sampling, you couldn't get a random sampling from guru if you tried. There is also something to be said for the ppl who vote on the poll without reading more than 5 words of the first post.
MoriaOrc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cab Tastic
Try this link
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#factors It takes less of a sample size than you would think to get an indication of public opinion. Oh and please stick to the debate instead of criticising forum members spelling. Thats pretty low. |
There is still the huge problem that a self-selecting sample presents. Basically any poll on Guru can be disregarded because the average forum-goer is so different from the average player.
manitoba1073
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
1) Of course Anet allowed fewer than 8 players in a zone. That doesn't mean then they were designing Fissure of Woe that they were intending it be be runnable by a single medic. Stop suggesting that Anet designed their game to be solo'd. Your logic fails at every turn. They're perfectly justified in closing the loophole in their game (or partially closing it as they did).
They listened to what players liked, and compromised on it by creating LS. You all would rather keep exploiting their game rather than have any kind of compromise. And here you are over a year later STILL unable to accept it. 2) Huh? Everyone can make nice money nowadays. Some people on that thread posted crazy amounts, but I'm mostly referring to the folks that are making 15k-25k per hour CURRENTLY. So you see? With this kind of income there's no need to remove, LS. And holy crap, you say you could have made 3 MILLION this weekend? And you still want LS removed? You completely just killed your own argument, lol. 3) You merely speculate about what will be in GW2. My speculation is that they will make multi-character zones challenging enough to require multiple characters. I guarantee you they're not designing the game right now thinking "hmm... let's make this elite area REALLY hard - unless someone brings this one build then they can destroy everything in sight and get rich insanely quick". |
I gave and still give plenty of comprimises. I suggest you go read some of the post that where made prior to inscriptions and the first LS thread. The only one not comprising is you. And no Anet didnt listen to players or they wouldnt have implemented LS in the first place.
Apparently once again you failed to read most posts. As most of those people are not making that much not even close. But if you would like to see what it does take to make that I'll be more than happy to show you. Im free all weekend here, Expect to farm about 48 hours so be rdy.
Me making 3 million in one weekend is not the same as a majority making it. As Ive clearly said before Im a hardcore player. And ofcourse I want it removed, I prefer people have the chances to actually get rewarded for each of there own different playstyles.
Ill let you think Im only speculating on GW2. Though Ill give you a little clue. You're close on the multi character zones. However it'll still be done similar in the way of WoW.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MithranArkanere
Isn't a million enough to get an obsidian set?
Shouldn't that take 3 months or so? |
[QUOTE=Creeping Carl]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Loviatar
Heya Loviatar Yes, I forgot about the already accumulated super hoard of wealth which make its even more mind blowingly ridiculous that they can stand on their piles of treasure and still yell about how poor they are. It's hilarious though, that they just couldnt help themselves by slipping up and bragging how much they're making and giving themselves more rope to hang themselves with. |
The only ones hanging themselves are you.
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
So answer points 1 and 2 then? Please... address this.
|
Second, you're making a logical fallacy as well. Let me rephrase the discussion in less abstract terms so that even you might understand the point.
You: I want a cat!
Me: Did you know that cat is a mammal?
You: You don't know anything, dogs, horses and frogs are mammals.
Me: Frog is an amphibian.
You: But cats are not dogs or horses, address this.
Me: *sigh*
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
When you anti-LS people are bragging about your million per week income, I don't see how you can shamelessly proclaim that farming is dead.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
When you anti-LS people are bragging about your million per week income, I don't see how you can shamelessly proclaim that farming is dead.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
As I've and others have been saying, the motivation for wanting LS removed is purely insane greed and selfishness. A million per week is chump change and still you demand more?
|
Three strikes, you lost.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
judging by all the posts responding to him, I'm not the only one who feels this way
|
Edit: corrected some typos
Cab Tastic
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MoriaOrc
The sample size isn't a concern any more for this pole, certainly. I think cebrali was pointing out that a sample of 30 (side note: this was the "magic number" I was given in my high school stats class as well) would be sufficient to generalize to the entire GW player base (around 1 million people).
There is still the huge problem that a self-selecting sample presents. Basically any poll on Guru can be disregarded because the average forum-goer is so different from the average player. |
As to GW Guru player make up. It is indeed likely to be made up of the more enthusiastic player types. But to trash a poll that is so conclusive is just silly. In my opinion it does indicate the strength of feeling against LS of the semi hard core and upwards.
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MoriaOrc
There is still the huge problem that a self-selecting sample presents. Basically any poll on Guru can be disregarded because the average forum-goer is so different from the average player.
|
Everybody should understand that guru polls that are not about forum issues like default background color, are strictly of entertainment value, and hence the logical choice is cake
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cab Tastic
In my opinion it does indicate the strength of feeling against LS of the semi hard core and upwards.
|
Creeping Carl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
*snipped because of length*
Three strikes, you lost. What can I say? Many people fail at reading comprehension. Edit: corrected some typos |
So don't throw that "you people fail at reading comprehension" bull at us. It really doesnt matter though, the main thing is that some of us disagree with your arguments no matter what side you claim to be on.
But here are some of your supposed pro LS posts. One calling pro_LS players communists and the other claiming that LS removes choice to farm and that removing LS would be better for the game.
So tell me, lacking reading comprehension and all, how does that sound like a person in support of LS rather than a person against the removal of LS?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
And this, right here, reveals the pathological side of communism in a very succint way. If I'm not earning insane amounts of money then nobody else should either. Down with the choice! Down with opportunities! Down with capitalist elitist pigs! Down with wealth, make everybody as poor as I am.
It always amazes me that when there's a choice of advancing opportunities and wealth, or repression and poverty, there's a substantial number of people who choose the latter. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
Do you see how you contradict yourself there? Without LS you have the choice of (1) either playing 'normally' and easily getting everything that you need to complete a campaign, or (2) farming or (3) trading for better income to get some vanity items. LS makes farming a non-option, ergo, it removes choice. Removing LS wouldn't force anybody to farm gold to be able to complete the game, claiming that is just silly. It would force people to do some work for vanity items, though. You don't want people to have a choice of doing something more profitable than you do, and that's fine and dandy. Just be aware what it is called.
Victim? Who, me? Did you even read what I wrote? My current - sustainable - average income is a bit over 100k per day, thank you very much, and it is fully sufficient for what I want to do before GW2 comes out. Loot Scaling doesn't have any effect on my game experience, so your weak attempt at dismissing my point not only misses the mark, it never even finds the general direction  I'm not whining. I'm not demanding that LS should be removed. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies and odd ideological constructs that people use to forward their agenda. |
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
So don't throw that "you people fail at reading comprehension" bull at us.
|
BTW it's very easy to make an online poll lie about its results. If I were mad, I could easily give 500 votes to the option 2 by using different accounts and IPs (I've seen it done many, many times) And don't forget that GWG is probably no more than 1% of the GW population, this is a very tiny and specific part of the community (GW is about clicking on the screen or typing in the chat, not typing in a forum
).
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Creeping Carl
So tell me, lacking reading comprehension and all, how does that sound like a person in support of LS rather than a person against the removal of LS?
|
ROFLMAO!
Thanks for the best laugh of the day by proving my argument in a most charming way.
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
First of all, since you made an elementary factual mistake which proved that you're not competent enough to discuss the issue, you've already lost.
Second, you're making a logical fallacy as well. Let me rephrase the discussion in less abstract terms so that even you might understand the point. You: I want a cat! Me: Did you know that cat is a mammal? You: You don't know anything, dogs, horses and frogs are mammals. Me: Frog is an amphibian. You: But cats are not dogs or horses, address this. Me: *sigh* |
Me: Except your comparison fails to be relevant here in such a basic way that it's utter nonsense.
You: Yes but since you said "communal ownership" and not "communal ownership of means of production", a technical point wasn't accurate and therefore nobody has any business confronting you for your inane babble about communism.
Me: Okay my bad, but still please justify how you can still label things as communist despite it's main pillars not applying in any way.
You: No I'm not going to do it.
Creeping Carl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
I think the hypocrisy of your reply works against you and your arguments (because the truth value of words is not only dependent on the word but the one who write them). You have a very limited understanding of what tmakinen is trying to say. I was here from the beginning and read his posts with huge interest and it was clear that he was trying to sort out facts from fiction, rather than take a clear-cut position. You understood it differently, and that's your right, but don't defend non-sense positions like this (everyone can say "no that's not what you meant, I know better than you what you meant"). I felt I'd rather come in his (her) support than have this continue, given he's (she's) contributed greatly to this thread.
BTW it's very easy to make an online poll lie about its results. If I were mad, I could easily give 500 votes to the option 2 by using different accounts and IPs (I've seen it done many, many times) And don't forget that GWG is probably no more than 1% of the GW population, this is a very tiny and specific part of the community (GW is about clicking on the screen or typing in the chat, not typing in a forum ). |
And in the meantime, he's free to portray everyone else as anti-capitalist communists while screaming at everyone that he's been misunderstood and everyone fails at reading comprehension. I don't expect everyone to have a clear cut position but when your arguments lean to one side more than the other then you have to ask yourself, which side of the issue am I really arguing for?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
(underlining mine)
ROFLMAO! Thanks for the best laugh of the day by proving my argument in a most charming way. |
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cebalrai
No I'm not going to do it.
|
(1) cats are mammals
(2) dogs are mammals
does not follow that cats are dogs. Since your position is so fundamentally flawed, there's no point in discussing it. There's overall no point in discussing with people who are unable to grasp the basic mechanisms of rational thought, other than for git and shiggles, and I've already gotten my laughs for today
MoriaOrc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cab Tastic
Yes, I understand that I was simply making the point that you don't necessarily need a huge sample to get reasonably accurate results within 5% or so.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cab Tastic
As to GW Guru player make up. It is indeed likely to be made up of the more enthusiastic player types. But to trash a poll that is so conclusive is just silly. In my opinion it does indicate the strength of feeling against LS of the semi hard core and upwards.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
BTW it's very easy to make an online poll lie about its results. If I were mad, I could easily give 500 votes to the option 2 by using different accounts and IPs (I've seen it done many, many times)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Slashdot Poll Disclaimer
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
|
cebalrai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by manitoba1073
I simple stated Anet suggested people play the way they wanted to not how you precieve people should play the game. If you cant handle that I'm sure JR has some hankies and tissues for you. SInce its obvious not a game for you that people should be allowed to play how they want just cause you seem to think its not fair. I bet Witte's guide to full Tyria solo really pisses you off then since its a full campaign that gets soloed.
|
Anet has said that you can still solo farm. They just don't want there to be such a huge gap (up to 8X wealth production) between it in other playing styles.
Makes sense to me.