The worst piece of content I've ever seen in any game

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The list demonstrates that
- demonstrates that the Ascendancy Release had large quality problems in both design and execution.
- providing anecdotal evidence as to how a significant percentage of the player base dislikes the labyrinth,
- demonstrates that there's been many problems in the labyrinth,
- help bring attention to the issue in the hope that GGG will fix the problem by making labyrinth optional or making ascendancy points available without requiring bad trap game play,
- and it demonstrates how horribly divisive the labyrinth has become for the community.

It also demonstrates:
1.that less than 4% of accounts on the account list are responsible for nearly a quarter of the threads on the thread list
2. that the "list keeper" will knowingly add alt accounts to the list of account names, and threads to the list of threads that have no business in there (looking at you, multiple "lab is so bad" spam threads. and threads that don't "discuss" anything like the one that is just a song parody.)
...

1. How does the list show that "less than 4% of accounts on the account list are responsible for nearly a quarter of the threads on the thread list"?
2. The song parody was critical of labyrinth and so your implications that it was not shows your lack of objectivity. I don't think that it is reasonable to argue that just because someone is posting from an alt account that their opinion is invalid. Since you have previously indicated strong paranoid tendencies I'm sure this may cause you great distress but the number of obvious alt accounts appears extremely low to me. I've asked you multiple times back up your paranoid fears with a list that I could use to PM people to ask them to tell me of any duplicates on the list but you'd rather wallow/revival in your paranoia.

"

Cazziuz wrote:

I my self am fairly new to PoE , and its content in general, but other than the one try part of the Lab , i really see no issue with it , how ever i do like the ideal of a item you can find in the lab , that isnt trade-able, kinda like the silver /gold keys, that will give you a extra shot at a particular lab run.
given that i haven't been able to avoid the one shot mechanics yet ( still working on figuring out what exactly to do) in Merc lab, i can see the issue , get through the first 2 just fine , to just get one shot almost as soon as the boss spawns .then have to spend 15-30 mins running back though and fighting the first two fights again, does get kinda annoying, not even D3 makes it that way, and for me( at least till the stability of this game started to be a issue) this game outshines D3 in every way , not counting the graphics.

Are you eliminating his buffs in the first 2? The 3rd fight he has any buffs you left on him, so he can be just as easy as the first 2 fights or much harder. When you are in the room with your stash, look at the ledges on either side of the stairs to see what buffs he'll have.

"

Turtledove wrote:

1. How does the list show that "less than 4% of accounts on the account list are responsible for nearly a quarter of the threads on the thread list"?
2. The song parody was critical of labyrinth and so your implications that it was not shows your lack of objectivity. I don't think that it is reasonable to argue that just because someone is posting from an alt account that their opinion is invalid. Since you have previously indicated strong paranoid tendencies I'm sure this may cause you great distress but the number of obvious alt accounts appears extremely low to me. I've asked you multiple times back up your paranoid fears with a list that I could use to PM people to ask them to tell me of any duplicates on the list but you'd rather wallow/revival in your paranoia.

1. Using the numbers I provided to you in the "donated analysis". I was off, it's actually 4%. I used 25 instead of 28 in my calculations, my mistake. Unless my math is off, 28 (number of accounts that have multiple laby threads) is 4% of 690 and 65 (number of threads they are responsible for) is 22% of 290. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2. First off, I'm not paranoid about anything. Everything I've said is based on your very own words. Second, you're the one that's showing an actual lack of objectivity by adding useless threads to the list and padding the accounts with obvious alts. It only hurts the credibility of the entire list. And the only thing I've implied about that song parody thread is that:
a. It's a joke, not credible feedback and definitely not discussing any actual problem with the laby.
b. It's only purpose, with regard to your lists (along with all the other spam threads), is to inflate the numbers in your list.

For those interested, This, is the song parody thread we're discussing. You be the judge if it's credible feedback, or even useful for the purposes of "the list". IMO, it's only added there for inflating the numbers. Along with all the other spam threads that served no purpose other than to troll.

Dunno why I bother replying to you though, you can't be reasoned with...

"

Turtledove wrote:

I no longer care about you or what nonsense you believe.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

1. How does the list show that "less than 4% of accounts on the account list are responsible for nearly a quarter of the threads on the thread list"?
2. The song parody was critical of labyrinth and so your implications that it was not shows your lack of objectivity. I don't think that it is reasonable to argue that just because someone is posting from an alt account that their opinion is invalid. Since you have previously indicated strong paranoid tendencies I'm sure this may cause you great distress but the number of obvious alt accounts appears extremely low to me. I've asked you multiple times back up your paranoid fears with a list that I could use to PM people to ask them to tell me of any duplicates on the list but you'd rather wallow/revival in your paranoia.

1. Using the numbers I provided to you in the "donated analysis". I was off, it's actually 4%. I used 25 instead of 28 in my calculations, my mistake. Unless my math is off, 28 (number of accounts that have multiple laby threads) is 4% of 690 and 65 (number of threads they are responsible for) is 22% of 290. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2. First off, I'm not paranoid about anything. Everything I've said is based on your very own words. Second, you're the one that's showing an actual lack of objectivity by adding useless threads to the list and padding the accounts with obvious alts. It only hurts the credibility of the entire list. And the only thing I've implied about that song parody thread is that:
a. It's a joke, not credible feedback and definitely not discussing any actual problem with the laby.
b. It's only purpose, with regard to your lists (along with all the other spam threads), is to inflate the numbers in your list.

For those interested, This, is the song parody thread we're discussing. You be the judge if it's credible feedback, or even useful for the purposes of "the list". IMO, it's only added there for inflating the numbers. Along with all the other spam threads that served no purpose other than to troll.

Dunno why I bother replying to you though, you can't be reasoned with...

"

Turtledove wrote:

I no longer care about you or what nonsense you believe.

1. I see. I fail to see any potential meaning that can be gleaned from your apparently completely useless statistic?

2. My conclusion that you're apparently paranoid is based completely on your own words and strong assertions that a small handful of people are responsible for or could be responsible for many hundreds of alt accounts in the list or at least your assertions that such a possibility can't be discarded. Also you're exhibiting further paranoia here by using my statement that there are maybe 3 or 4 alt accounts on the list to think that the whole list is invalid.

The purpose of the thread list is not to present valid criticism. That would introduce a subjective judgment that I'm not interested in getting into because there are people incapable of objective thinking running around that would then nitpick absolutely everything. It is a historical list of all the threads with the couple of exceptions noted in the OP of that thread. It started off as a list showing that there were more threads about labyrinth than threads about ACT 4. There are many thread about ACT 4 or any other topic that has many threads that are going to be arguably "invalid" as well. If you want a different kind of list then make your own list.

Don't know why you bother replying to me either since you already stated that you believe me to be so deceitful. So don't respond.

"

Turtledove wrote:

My conclusion that you're apparently paranoid is based completely on your own words and strong assertions that a small handful of people are responsible for or could be responsible for many hundreds of alt accounts in the list or at least your assertions that such a possibility can't be discarded. Also you're exhibiting further paranoia here by using my statement that there are maybe 3 or 4 alt accounts on the list to think that the whole list is invalid.

This pretty much says it all, and is equally valid when applied to that other ridiculous 10-page tangent in that other thread. I've pointed it out and gotten a "You're missing the point" response every time. ;)

"

Turtledove wrote:

Don't know why you bother replying to me either since you already stated that you believe me to be so deceitful. So don't respond.

I think Shovelcut is a "must have the last word" type. (You kinda are too, sorry. Welp, I can be that way too if I'm being completely honest.)

So even if not responding is the most mature response, I wouldn't expect it. (Feel free to prove me wrong, Shovelcut.)

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

My conclusion that you're apparently paranoid is based completely on your own words and strong assertions that a small handful of people are responsible for or could be responsible for many hundreds of alt accounts in the list or at least your assertions that such a possibility can't be discarded. Also you're exhibiting further paranoia here by using my statement that there are maybe 3 or 4 alt accounts on the list to think that the whole list is invalid.

This pretty much says it all, and is equally valid when applied to that other ridiculous 10-page tangent in that other thread. I'm pointed it out and gotten a "You're missing the point" response every time. ;)

"

Turtledove wrote:

Don't know why you bother replying to me either since you already stated that you believe me to be so deceitful. So don't respond.

I think Shovelcut is a "must have the last word" type. (You kinda are too, sorry. Welp, I can be that way too if I'm being completely honest.)

So even if not responding is the most mature response, I wouldn't expect it. (Feel free to prove me wrong, Shovelcut.)

Gibbousmoon seems to be a wise soul, I'd have to admit.

"

Turtledove wrote:

1. I see. I fail to see any potential meaning that can be gleaned from your apparently completely useless statistic?

It's as relevant as anything you've claimed that the list demonstrates. In fact, it's one of the only things about the list that can be proven as a hard fact.
Everything else is either personal opinion or conjecture IMO...

"

Turtledove wrote:

2. My conclusion that you're apparently paranoid is based completely on your own words and strong assertions that a small handful of people are responsible for or could be responsible for many hundreds of alt accounts in the list or at least your assertions that such a possibility can't be discarded. Also you're exhibiting further paranoia here by using my statement that there are maybe 3 or 4 alt accounts on the list to think that the whole list is invalid.

Where have I ever claimed anything like that? I dare you to find where I said that, you won't. Because I've never stated anything of the sort.

The only claims I've made is that:

• You were making an extremely dishonest statement by saying that your "further analysis" of the list of account names proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are only 3 or 4 alts on there based on their creation dates and supporter packs. Which aside from being rhetoric, it's also a fallacy.
• That you are using pointless spam threads to increase the numbers of your list, and that you're knowingly adding alts. I feel that this hurts the credibility of the entire list.
• That you resort to throwing derogatory terms around when it comes to anyone who has a differing view.
• And that you use a lot of rhetoric to try and prove your point.

Yet somehow you always make it about "that a small handful of people are responsible for or could be responsible for many hundreds of alt accounts in the list".

[quote="gibbousmoon"]I'm pointed it out and gotten a "You're missing the point" response every time. ;)[/quote]
It couldn't be because you were just parroting a phrase Turtle kept responding with, when that wasn't even what was being discussed, could it?

But by all means keep repeating your rebuttal that has nothing to do with what I've said, like a good parrot.

Oh, and gibbous...
[spoiler]I've got nothing to prove to you. Just keep on passing judgement up there on your parrot perch. :)[/spoiler]

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

1. I see. I fail to see any potential meaning that can be gleaned from your apparently completely useless statistic?

It's as relevant as anything you've claimed that the list demonstrates. In fact, it's one of the only things about the list that can be proven as a hard fact.
Everything else is either personal opinion or conjecture IMO...

"

Turtledove wrote:

2. My conclusion that you're apparently paranoid is based completely on your own words and strong assertions that a small handful of people are responsible for or could be responsible for many hundreds of alt accounts in the list or at least your assertions that such a possibility can't be discarded. Also you're exhibiting further paranoia here by using my statement that there are maybe 3 or 4 alt accounts on the list to think that the whole list is invalid.

Where have I ever claimed anything like that? I dare you to find where I said that, you won't. Because I've never stated anything of the sort.

The only claims I've made is that:

• You were making an extremely dishonest statement by saying that your "further analysis" of the list of account names proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are only 3 or 4 alts on there based on their creation dates and supporter packs. Which aside from being rhetoric, it's also a fallacy.
• That you are using pointless spam threads to increase the numbers of your list, and that you're knowingly adding alts. I feel that this hurts the credibility of the entire list.
• That you resort to throwing derogatory terms around when it comes to anyone who has a differing view.
• And that you use a lot of rhetoric to try and prove your point.

Yet somehow you always make it about "that a small handful of people are responsible for or could be responsible for many hundreds of alt accounts in the list".

[quote="gibbousmoon"]I'm pointed it out and gotten a "You're missing the point" response every time. ;)

It couldn't be because you were just parroting a phrase Turtle kept responding with, when that wasn't even what was being discussed, could it?

But by all means keep repeating your rebuttal that has nothing to do with what I've said, like a good parrot. [/quote]

It's a rebuttal to nothing. It's an attack on the relevance of your accusation. If you cannot respond to that, you are just spinning your wheels and keeping that thread off topic in perpetuity. Wasting your own time, really.

[quote]Oh, and gibbous... I've got nothing to prove to you. Just keep on passing judgement up there on your parrot perch. :)[/quote]

Indeed you don't. The only person you need to prove anything to is yourself.