0.9.12c Patch Notes

How about you try to make a good argument for implementing the proper fonts then instead of discriminating against a certain group of people?

Nobody should be disregarded, especially if it is easily possible to help them and give them equal opportunities. Quite sad that this still needs to be taught to some people.

Argueing that your conveniences are more important than other people's possibility to do a certain thing at all or otherwise be excluded from it is sickening.
"
Burgingham wrote:
How about you try to make a good argument for implementing the proper fonts then instead of discriminating against a certain group of people?

Nobody should be disregarded, especially if it is easily possible to help them and give them equal opportunities. Quite sad that this still needs to be taught to some people.

Argueing that your conveniences are more important than other people's possibility to do a certain thing at all or otherwise be excluded from it is sickening.


Why would I come up with arguments for implementing fonts for dyslectic people when I am against it?

Sometimes request should be disregarded in my opinion, especially when the inquiry involves changes that impact all the other players too and only benefit a very small number of people. You don't have to teach me anything, I just don't agree with the equal opportunities crap. Like I said, there are many other forms of handicaps that can be easily addressed. Like deaf people, dyslectic people, maybe paranoia people too?? Where do you draw the line huh? A game is not a hospital or a metal institution. Colorblind people should play games for colorblinds, why should a game be colorblind friendly by default in your opinion?

It are not MY conveniences that or more important it are ALL THE NOT COLORBLIND player's conveniences.

BTW I am glad they made the over the top bright colors less bright in one of the recent patches. It looks OK now.

So back to work and no more handicap friendly patches, there are more important things!
Last edited by Startkabels#3733 on Sep 17, 2012, 9:44:07 AM
"
blackadda wrote:
Lots of discussion ingame about map drop rates.

The long and the short of it is maps are dropping a lot less than pre-patch.

Since 9.12c the drop rate is consistently being reported as "Use 3 maps, get 1-2 back"

Now its virtually impossible to "break even" on map drops and get as many as you use.

Previously it was possible to break even but only at relatively high IIQ levels (80-150% and beyond).

Personally the enjoyment of running maps and the random 2 steps forward, 1 back nature of map levels is a lot of fun, going back to regular content is not an option which will keep my interest in the game and definitely not one which would make me want to spend any more money on it.

Basically , please give us viable/sustainable drop rates on maps, Enough low level maps to make the VENDOR recipe to turn in 3 maps for 1 of a +1 level a viable option, and enough to ensure players rarely, if ever, run out of maps once they hit the endgame.



The 24% figure is far too low for endgame sustainability. With the only viable content for high level players being high level maps, this is a serious issue.

Can we please get a "no nonsense" answer to this?

A> Is it intended for players to be able to do maps full time after a certain point?

OR
B> Is it intended for players to run out of maps of any kind and need to go back to content 20 levels lower than their character level in order to get maps ?

If the answer is "B" then there needs to be viable content for players over lvl 75 other than maps.

Ultimately "Sustainable" maps seems like the better endgame, but a confirmation/fix from GGG would reassure a lot of players.



You are right. I donot know what to do when maps out. To get a new map takes me 3 or 4 hours.
Sup, guys!
:3
Thanks.
Last edited by mushroomy#4609 on Jan 2, 2014, 9:14:17 AM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info