Submit Your Character for Build of the Week!

"

Temeritas wrote:

Your graphic is one of the many examples of misleading graphics.

No, because GGG said things exactly that I drew.

You have only two main options: 'No' and 'Yes'. 'Rare' or 'Common' - is just part of 'yes' answer. There is no third option at all. So your math just not work.

"

wasama2 wrote:

Imagine holding elections.

Obama 48%
Bush 27%
Clinton 25%

Yes, Obama - 48%
No, not Obama. Bush is better - 27%
No, not Obama. Clinton is better - 25%

Feel the difference between my and your example.

I would love to submit my build for this. I'm horrible at writing builds. /dilemma

"

Moritonel wrote:

"

While you're here, we wanted to mention that the poll we started yesterday has now closed. The community has conclusively decided that they would like us to introduce nets that allow you to capture beasts after they've died.

and the reddit salt and babyrage community got again what they want and make the game easier without any reason. D3 style soon? Ya I know I overreact but dude. The 3 sec threshold was needed to make it fair for 99% of the builds. yes some are harder, some are easier. That's how it with everything in this game. now its like, get your shit for free if you have money (hello 10% buying all the rarer nets to make the biggest currency with recipes while fucking up the intended capture mech)

In my eyes, another bad decision, but we will see.

The biggest problem will be, that rare beasts are now even more rare, because the reddit speed meta kids can rush maps in 30 seconds, while we normal people need a few minutes.

It is already very seldom that I meet a red beast, none today in a few hours of play... how is this going to look like once the dead net is in the game and they nerf the appearance of beasts?

GGG is doing what Blizzard did to D3, destroy their own game because of children, a vocal minority. Soon GGG will not make money anymore, as all the adults have left, just like with D3 and then content will stop coming.

My build is great, it´s a summoner skelly spectre curse build, the best I had so far. Loving it :D

"

DoEFotGS wrote:

"

Temeritas wrote:

Your graphic is one of the many examples of misleading graphics.

No, because GGG said things exactly that I drew.

You have only two main options: 'No' and 'Yes'. 'Rare' or 'Common' - is just part of 'yes' answer. There is no third option at all. So your math just not work.

Yeah so there is NO reason for this:

"

We will take into account the significant votes towards "more common" when deciding the final rarity.

The rule was :
50% no = no
50% yes but more common = yes but more common
otherwise = yes but more rare.

So now they'll take into account the "significant" (25%) votes towards "more common" and ignore the 48% votes towards "no"? That makes no sense at all.

instead of taking the roughly 25% minority into account who wanted the dead-net to drop more common, how about taking into account the vast majority who didnt want those at all? i get that 48% is not 50%, i really do. but, you know, the gap is so freaking small that you should at least throw the ney-sayers a bone and make it super, super, super, super rare

"

AsbelFar wrote:

"

DoEFotGS wrote:

"

Temeritas wrote:

Your graphic is one of the many examples of misleading graphics.

No, because GGG said things exactly that I drew.

You have only two main options: 'No' and 'Yes'. 'Rare' or 'Common' - is just part of 'yes' answer. There is no third option at all. So your math just not work.

Yeah so there is NO reason for this:

"

We will take into account the significant votes towards "more common" when deciding the final rarity.

The rule was :
50% no = no
50% yes but more common = yes but more common
otherwise = yes but more rare.

So now they'll take into account the "significant" (25%) votes towards "more common" and ignore the 48% votes towards "no"? That makes no sense at all.

Example:
Best for me (Yes common), average - (No), worst - (Yes rare).

I vote for (Yes common). But my vote helped (Yes rare) recieve more votes than (No).
As result I have worst choise.


In other words, the unification of two different Yes is incorrect

"

AsbelFar wrote:

The rule was :
50% no = no
50% yes but more common = yes but more common
otherwise = yes but more rare.

So now they'll take into account the "significant" (25%) votes towards "more common" and ignore the 48% votes towards "no"? That makes no sense at all.

Wrong.

Rule was:

50%+ for no = no.
50%+ both yes = yes
but nets will be common only if 'common' option reach 50%+ alone.


You are play in game where wording means almost all and still don't see such things?

"

DoEFotGS wrote:

"

Temeritas wrote:

Your graphic is one of the many examples of misleading graphics.

No, because GGG said things exactly that I drew.

You have only two main options: 'No' and 'Yes'. 'Rare' or 'Common' - is just part of 'yes' answer. There is no third option at all. So your math just not work.

It is massively misleading because it only is relevant for the first part of the decision and not the second, for which you try to use it as an argument. Yes won, barely but it won. BUT, the decision on how to implement its rarity should not be confused with its implementation over all. Either hold an other poll to ask how rare they should be, or draw the logical conclusion that no voters, if any at all, support a low droprate aka the rare option.

So the logical conclusion, if you dont want to bend the facts to reach you wished for conclusion, would be to either stick with the initial mentioned plan to make them rare, or if anything is to be taken into account it is the massive number of players not wanting nets at all to make them rarer than initially intended.

"

DoEFotGS wrote:

"

AsbelFar wrote:

The rule was :
50% no = no
50% yes but more common = yes but more common
otherwise = yes but more rare.

So now they'll take into account the "significant" (25%) votes towards "more common" and ignore the 48% votes towards "no"? That makes no sense at all.

Wrong.

Rule was:

50%+ for no = no.
50%+ both yes = yes
but nets will be common only if 'common' option reach 50%+ alone.

Spoiler

Example:
24% 'no'
51% 'yes, common'
25% 'yes, rare'

76% total 'yes', 'common' reach 50%+ and nets will be implemented as common item.

You are play in game where wording means almost all and still don't see such things?

That's strictly equivalent to what I said.

Now, the thing is "no" is equivalent to "yes but so insanely rare that it doesn't drop at all". Why the 48% who voted this are less significant than the 25% who voted "more common"?
Those nets should be implemented as "more rare", that's what GGG said. But they "take into account the "more common". So "more common" kinda won with 25% instead of the 50% required.

Check mine builds.

All CI. None working !

So balanced. Much WoW !