Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support DONE!!!!!

"

The_Reporter wrote:

That makes it six!

6 bumps, not 6 people on your 3 man crusade.

"

Clownkrieger wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The labyrinth game play is boring, tedious, and irritating but some think it fun so, it should stay.

thats your opinion, and everyone is allowed to have one :)

but what is it now? are you ignoring me? im still waiting for you to prove your claim someone "pretended" something (except you, that is...) and an answer to my question. (see here for reference)

a statement to what i wrote here would be also nice.

a reasonable and rational person like you wont simply ignore this, or will you? or are you fearing the confrontation with a, what did you call me again, "casual thinker" like me? :)

Of course it is my opinion. You snipped it out of context where I was directly responding to a contrary opinion.

I really don't understand what you are asking. Your posts make little sense to me and I admit that I don't bother trying to read them again to try harder to figure out what you're trying to say.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Of course it is my opinion. You snipped it out of context where I was directly responding to a contrary opinion.

dont know what context matters in this case. and you really dont have to repeat yourself, we all got what your opinion is till now :)

"

Turtledove wrote:

I really don't understand what you are asking. Your posts make little sense to me and I admit that I don't bother trying to read them again to try harder to figure out what you're trying to say.

i gladly repeat myself and try to spell it our for you! and to make it easier for you i wont criticize your way of "arguing" or "debating" here, maybe you try to get that out of my former posts :)

1) in your answer on emphasys post, where he (or she) discussed different possibilities how the statistics that were in question could have been gathered and interpreted, and where she repeated - what others said before - that it would be your task to prove your claim that those statistics have been manipulated to make the lab appear in the top 10 at all (which you claimed here), you wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

It also does not prove what the GGG motivation is but you folks pretending that it doesn't say what it says seems pretty silly.

- i simply asked of you to quote where anybody in this thread "pretended" (aside from some clearly as speculation labeled... speculations) something else as the list states - that an instance called aspirants trial is the 7th most created instance in breach.

- and, since you were it who pretended the statistics were manipulated with a certain motivation, i would like to know - as you have come to the conclusion, that the statistic itself gives no account for gggs motivation whatsoever - how you stand to that claim of yours now.

2) in your reply to Jgizle about playernumbers/majorities, you wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

... this idea that 50% of the people need to want a change is silly. It is not a democracy. GGG is a company. GGG will decide to do something based on what they think, not some electoral process where people vote and GGG tallys votes to see if there's at least 50% voting for something. [...] Your majority assumption is made up nonsense. A figure you have pulled out of thin air, meaningless blather, worthless numbers, irrational thinking. Sorry, but that's plain and simple.

- if that is the case, i would like to know what exactly your motivation is to gather a list of "supporters" (and constantly imply that there is a majority who dislikes lab) to demand changes to the lab?

----

ok, i hope ive made clear what im asking you now. excuse the lengthy text, but im not used to catchy phrases and english is not my native language :)


Clown

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Clownkrieger wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The labyrinth game play is boring, tedious, and irritating but some think it fun so, it should stay.

thats your opinion, and everyone is allowed to have one :)

but what is it now? are you ignoring me? im still waiting for you to prove your claim someone "pretended" something (except you, that is...) and an answer to my question. (see here for reference)

a statement to what i wrote here would be also nice.

a reasonable and rational person like you wont simply ignore this, or will you? or are you fearing the confrontation with a, what did you call me again, "casual thinker" like me? :)

Of course it is my opinion. You snipped it out of context where I was directly responding to a contrary opinion.

I really don't understand what you are asking. Your posts make little sense to me and I admit that I don't bother trying to read them again to try harder to figure out what you're trying to say.

lol, which is exactly what makes it a crusade, you're not even trying to understand what the guy is saying

Thing is, laby needs to create new instance when you die. It's not like malachai where you rejoin same instance.

And even when that's the case, we don't see aspirant's plaza on the top 10 (the first lab instance's name when you join it), we see aspirant's trial.

"

Clownkrieger wrote:

1) in your answer on emphasys post, where he (or she) discussed different possibilities how the statistics that were in question could have been gathered and interpreted, and where she repeated - what others said before - that it would be your task to prove your claim that those statistics have been manipulated to make the lab appear in the top 10 at all (which you claimed here), you wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

It also does not prove what the GGG motivation is but you folks pretending that it doesn't say what it says seems pretty silly.

- i simply asked of you to quote where anybody in this thread "pretended" (aside from some clearly as speculation labeled... speculations) something else as the list states - that an instance called aspirants trial is the 7th most created instance in breach.

- and, since you were it who pretended the statistics were manipulated with a certain motivation, i would like to know - as you have come to the conclusion, that the statistic itself gives no account for gggs motivation whatsoever - how you stand to that claim of yours now.

Regarding the "pretended" word, I guess here you're quibbling over the use of the word? We can replace that word with "assertions" or something if that makes you more comfortable?

Sorry, you are apparently mixing me up with others. I agree with their conclusions that adding together all difficulty instances and basically multiplying by 3 because there's three instances of aspirants trial per successful labyrinth run was likely purposely misleading for that list of top 10. I would guess that it's more likely motivated by politics internal to GGG rather than trying to really deceive the player base though.

"

Clownkrieger wrote:

2) in your reply to Jgizle about playernumbers/majorities, you wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

... this idea that 50% of the people need to want a change is silly. It is not a democracy. GGG is a company. GGG will decide to do something based on what they think, not some electoral process where people vote and GGG tallys votes to see if there's at least 50% voting for something. [...] Your majority assumption is made up nonsense. A figure you have pulled out of thin air, meaningless blather, worthless numbers, irrational thinking. Sorry, but that's plain and simple.

- if that is the case, i would like to know what exactly your motivation is to gather a list of "supporters" (and constantly imply that there is a majority who dislikes lab) to demand changes to the lab?

----

ok, i hope ive made clear what im asking you now. excuse the lengthy text, but im not used to catchy phrases and english is not my native language :)


Clown

The motivation is given in the OP of this thread. I call it the "purpose" in the OP rather than the motivation.

"

The purpose of this list is not meant to "tag" anyone into any particular camp. It is meant primarily to demonstrate that many people have things about labyrinth that they think can be improved upon. Unlike the false assertions by some that have argued against any need to fix this problem there are far more than the 5, 10, or 20 that they incorrectly asserted have posted in support of changes. This list blows those silly assertions out of the water.

"

Sorry, you are apparently mixing me up with others. I agree with their conclusions that adding together all difficulty instances and basically multiplying by 3 because there's three instances of aspirants trial per successful labyrinth run was likely purposely misleading for that list of top 10. I would guess that it's more likely motivated by politics internal to GGG rather than trying to really deceive the player base though.

The thing is that list was purely a fun little statistic, which shouldn't require much work to create so someone just pulled the names and created a list which of course due to the nature of those instances inflates the number for lab and maps. But then again the fact that people just create instances to look for master missions or side areas or to farm Voll is also not accounted for. Since they didn't create the list to proof anything or to use it for any argument it doesn't have to be too well made, again similar to the Hailrake deaths. The only interesting thing you can pull from that list is that Coast is in there, but not any other normal area.

"

The motivation is given in the OP of this thread. I call it the "purpose" in the OP rather than the motivation.

Yeah the motivation again... which is at odds with itself, because a lot of those required fixes were made, yet the threads are still counted even though. Things like making Trials league wide were done, ES was fixed, even though I'm not even sure it was necessary, undoable layouts were fixed. And 3.0 likely brings some further changes because the points somehow have to be redistributed, which is likely the last change for a long time the lab will see.

"

Emphasy wrote:

"

Sorry, you are apparently mixing me up with others. I agree with their conclusions that adding together all difficulty instances and basically multiplying by 3 because there's three instances of aspirants trial per successful labyrinth run was likely purposely misleading for that list of top 10. I would guess that it's more likely motivated by politics internal to GGG rather than trying to really deceive the player base though.

The thing is that list was purely a fun little statistic, which shouldn't require much work to create so someone just pulled the names and created a list which of course due to the nature of those instances inflates the number for lab and maps. But then again the fact that people just create instances to look for master missions or side areas or to farm Voll is also not accounted for. Since they didn't create the list to proof anything or to use it for any argument it doesn't have to be too well made, again similar to the Hailrake deaths. The only interesting thing you can pull from that list is that Coast is in there, but not any other normal area.

I agree with that. That is why I was not trying to push my point of view on that issue.

"

Emphasy wrote:

"

The motivation is given in the OP of this thread. I call it the "purpose" in the OP rather than the motivation.

Yeah the motivation again... which is at odds with itself, because a lot of those required fixes were made, yet the threads are still counted even though. Things like making Trials league wide were done, ES was fixed, even though I'm not even sure it was necessary, undoable layouts were fixed. And 3.0 likely brings some further changes because the points somehow have to be redistributed, which is likely the last change for a long time the lab will see.

You lost the thread of the thread there. The account name list was being discussed not the thread list.

Regarding your points on the thread list. We've already discussed that, if you'd like to review then please reference my position in the OP of this thread, . Your points are not relevant to the list as it stands. When a thread is added to the list then it is done. Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand if you just thought of it as a historical list?