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

Yeah BodyHammer01. The truth is it is an unbiased list of people who may or may not want any changes to the labyrinth.

Actually no, you're focusing on the dumbest part of my post, when the actual point of it is that you force add people to the list, and you add pretty much everyone regardless of how much thought went into their post, if it even has a realistic basis, or if they even understood what they were complaining about. Which is not only true, but undeniable.

I was making the comment that the list contains many names that no longer have issues with the lab (ie the ones who complained about having to do the trials on every character and the ones who complained about trap damage to ES, to name a couple issues that were addressed).

"

mark1030 wrote:

Yeah BodyHammer01. The truth is it is an unbiased list of people who may or may not want any changes to the labyrinth.

Look, even Mark is turning into a liar!

[Removed by Support]

Since you fellows are too lazy to even look at the OP I'll copy it here for you.

"

Note that there are many problems with labyrinth and many people have argued on both sides of the argument. 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.

It's that simple. The only claim is that it proves that more than a handful of people post in the forums that they think the labyrinth needs improvement. But even Mark has argued that it doesn't prove that although I think he admitted that he believes it is more than a handful of people posting on the forums. Which seems to be a contradictory position to take but perhaps he hasn't ever really explained it properly?

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

Yeah BodyHammer01. The truth is it is an unbiased list of people who may or may not want any changes to the labyrinth.

Look, even Mark is turning into a liar!

Tell me which part of my statement makes me a liar. It is indeed a list that contains people some of which want changes to the lab and some of which don't. The ones that don't were the ones that you refused to prune out of the list. The ones that had their complaints addressed. Account wide trials for example.

Is it though? I don't feel like I need to go post by post in the listing here, there should really be no debate on what I stated.

"This is the most bullshit part of the stupid fucking game.
How can you justify having fucked up traps that kill so fucking fast in the fucking dark.
6 fucking offerings I just went through and I finally got to the last phase and get fucking 1 shot.
1 SHOT!
[Removed by Support]
THEN ONE SHOT!
JUSTIFY THAT.
[Removed by Support]
FUCK THE STUPID LAB."

I'd say my comment was on point. I'm in favor of lab adjustments, personally. My point remains that things like this do nothing for anyone. "Traps killing fast", "one shot". No rhyme or reason as to why they happened, no information on build or how much life the guy even had. Frankly if you die "so fucking fast" to a trap, it's not the game, it's you, you were not prepared. Was he running around with 2000 life? We don't even know. But we should be using him as a means of making game changes?

There's good posts in the list, some great ones. My point was never that all of them were bad, but there's some pretty damn bad ones.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

Yeah BodyHammer01. The truth is it is an unbiased list of people who may or may not want any changes to the labyrinth.

Look, even Mark is turning into a liar!

Tell me which part of my statement makes me a liar. It is indeed a list that contains people some of which want changes to the lab and some of which don't. The ones that don't were the ones that you refused to prune out of the list. The ones that had their complaints addressed. Account wide trials for example.

I have never refused to remove someone's name from the list, if they've asked. No one has ever asked me to remove someone else's name either? Although if someone did ask such a thing I can't imagine why such a request should be paid attention to? I really don't understand whether you actually believe what you post or not. I explained the purpose of the list and gave you as an example of a person that has pushed the insane conspiracy theory that the vast majority of the list is all alt accounts. That only a handful of people are represented by the list. The only proof you were willing to give to support this silly conspiracy theory is that no one can prove that any single account is not an alt account.

Not 1 thing you just said shows I'm a liar. I never said you refused to take somebody's name off the list if they requested it. And i never said that I knew how many on your list were alt accounts. I merely stated you don't know either and shouldn't be saying otherwise. Not going to go back through that exchange because you keep changing the subject just like you did in your last post. Where exactly did I lie when I said that some names on your list may or may not still want changes to the lab?

Mark is just saying your list might be a bit outdated, you can't really claim otherwise with any certainty so there's no reason for you to get offended. It's just a list of people that at some moment in time had any amount of beef with the labyrinth, if devs made any action based on the premise that such a list exists I'd be questioning their sanity.

I suppose you could assemble quite a list of people that complained about, say, gem socket system at some point on any grounds (and I'd also be on it), and the actual value of that list from a game developer standpoint would be similar to a chewed-out gum or a used condom.

"

mark1030 wrote:

Not 1 thing you just said shows I'm a liar. I never said you refused to take somebody's name off the list if they requested it. And i never said that I knew how many on your list were alt accounts. I merely stated you don't know either and shouldn't be saying otherwise. Not going to go back through that exchange because you keep changing the subject just like you did in your last post. Where exactly did I lie when I said that some names on your list may or may not still want changes to the lab?

Okay Mark, let's look at what you said.

"

mark1030 wrote:

... It is indeed a list that contains people some of which want changes to the lab and some of which don't. The ones that don't were the ones that you refused to prune out of the list. The ones that had their complaints addressed. Account wide trials for example.

I responded

"

Turtledove wrote:

I have never refused to remove someone's name from the list, if they've asked. No one has ever asked me to remove someone else's name either? Although if someone did ask such a thing I can't imagine why such a request should be paid attention to? I really don't understand whether you actually believe what you post or not. I explained the purpose of the list and gave you as an example of a person that has pushed the insane conspiracy theory that the vast majority of the list is all alt accounts. That only a handful of people are represented by the list. The only proof you were willing to give to support this silly conspiracy theory is that no one can prove that any single account is not an alt account.

You see your underlined sentence? "The ones that don't were the ones that you refused to prune out of the list." I never refused to prune these out of the list. No one has previously suggested that they be pruned from the list. There would be no reasonable way to even do that since they were probably added to the original list by Zaludoz and those additions never had their post published that got them on the list in the first place.

Perhaps you're confusing a statement I made in response to someone suggesting that threads discussing labyrinth problems that have been resolved or at least mitigated be removed from the thread list?

It is true that you never said how many on the list were alt accounts. I never claimed you said that. What I claimed is that you and Shovelcut were arguing that the list of many hundreds of accounts (most accounts created before the release of labyrinth) was not sufficient evidence to prove that more than a handful of individual people have posted in the forum that people would like to see a labyrinth problem fixed. I further asserted that the only evidence you presented supporting this position was that I couldn't prove if an individual account was an alt account or not. I have also asserted that such an idea is a paranoid conspiracy theory. Which you and Shovelcut responded to by saying that I was just using insults to try and make your position look weak.