Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post
    Except for the part that he literally starts off saying that they should have specified better that it wasn't just for lore.

    Why are you talking down to people if you didn't even properly read what was said?
    Yeah, my bad. It wasn't for the lore, but because the storytelling, even though we reached that 2 months into 9.0, and since you like the word so much, we were literally told that it was literally impossible to switch covenants that easily, almost like if they were talking about implementing a leggo scrapper, something so big it'd require a new engine.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Garretdejiko View Post
    Yeah, my bad. It wasn't for the lore, but because the storytelling, even though we reached that 2 months into 9.0, and since you like the word so much, we were literally told that it was literally impossible to switch covenants that easily, almost like if they were talking about implementing a leggo scrapper, something so big it'd require a new engine.
    [IMG]https://i.ibb.co/qRNsTB3/lmao.jpg[IMG]
    He also clearly mentioned it aligning with gameplay, but I see you're still interpreting it the way you wish.

    Which it's easy to see why they would want to encourage players to stick to a single covenant, if players swapped every week not only would it be a disjarring experience for them, but the catch up mechanic wouldn't have helped them much at the start of the expansion either.

    Also, your weird attempt at ad hominems (Because using a word twice properly is "liking it so much"?) aside, they also never said anything about being "impossible to switch covenants that easily". No idea where you're getting that idea from.

    They did, however, near the start of the expansion say they can't unbundle the covenants into just being cosmetics, that there was no ripcord to remove that.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester Joe View Post
    He also clearly mentioned it aligning with gameplay, but I see you're still interpreting it the way you wish.

    Which it's easy to see why they would want to encourage players to stick to a single covenant, if players swapped every week not only would it be a disjarring experience for them, but the catch up mechanic wouldn't have helped them much at the start of the expansion either.

    Also, your weird attempt at ad hominems (Because using a word twice properly is "liking it so much"?) aside, they also never said anything about being "impossible to switch covenants that easily". No idea where you're getting that idea from.

    They did, however, near the start of the expansion say they can't unbundle the covenants into just being cosmetics, that there was no ripcord to remove that.
    There's no other way to interpret that, not with this timing.
    "We don't want to encourage that kind of gameplay? * Sub count skydives, pulls three ripcords * jk, now we do.
    Also, that's the thing with the word literally, bloats any statement and dazzle any softbrain owner.
    That's it for me, you can support and defend anything you want, at least don't do it for free (couple of hairstyles yay shadowlands saved)

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Garretdejiko View Post
    There's no other way to interpret that, not with this timing.
    "We don't want to encourage that kind of gameplay? * Sub count skydives, pulls three ripcords * jk, now we do.
    Also, that's the thing with the word literally, bloats any statement and dazzle any softbrain owner.
    That's it for me, you can support and defend anything you want, at least don't do it for free (couple of hairstyles yay shadowlands saved)
    I feel like you're missing that you're moving the goalposts so fast it's giving whiplash at this point.

    It's not even about defending or supporting, but the least you could do is actually back up statements instead.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaade View Post
    This series of Tweets is like listening to someone pouring a drink, a perfectly normal activity that's done all the time while explaining exactly the reason they're justified in pouring the drink.
    Which happens because that person is getting asked by multiple people why they are pouring the drink in that way, and still more people yelling at you that you are pouring it wrong.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    Which happens because that person is getting asked by multiple people why they are pouring the drink in that way, and still more people yelling at you that you are pouring it wrong.
    Except no one is doing that. The timeline is that Blizzard made these changes and then the community pilloried them, in order to save face (because for some reason pride is super-important to Ion) he wrote something that no one believes anyway, instead of just acting with a modicum of humility.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Garretdejiko View Post
    Is this real life? It's like talking to a small child. "We are right, you're wrong" mentality is not mutually exclusive nor implies the opposite. The fact that Ion is justifying recent changes with "lmao lore" instead of owning his mistake is the core of said mentality. Mistakes that they as a team acknowledged, but he as an individual remains oblivious.
    Stop doing it for free.
    Again, you are asking him to admit to your OPINION. You claiming they made a mistake doesn't mean they made one nor does it mean he thinks he made oneWhy should he admit to something he doesn't believe he made? You are doing exactly what I said the players are doing. You have declared that you are right and Blizzard should just admit they are wrong. That is now how this works at all.

    As it is you didn't even read what he said as he said it wasn't just about lore.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Garretdejiko View Post
    There's no other way to interpret that, not with this timing.
    "We don't want to encourage that kind of gameplay? * Sub count skydives, pulls three ripcords * jk, now we do.
    Also, that's the thing with the word literally, bloats any statement and dazzle any softbrain owner.
    That's it for me, you can support and defend anything you want, at least don't do it for free (couple of hairstyles yay shadowlands saved)
    They didn't pull any ripcirds. It is hilarious whatch palyere continue to try to claim changes that they made that are the same as they have made the past several expansions to make things easier later in the expansion are "pulling the ripcord". The usual buzzwords from the players trying to claim they ere were always right.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Quaade View Post
    Except no one is doing that. The timeline is that Blizzard made these changes and then the community pilloried them, in order to save face (because for some reason pride is super-important to Ion) he wrote something that no one believes anyway, instead of just acting with a modicum of humility.
    Once again that is spin to spit on Ion for because he won't admit your opinions are fact. Talk about acting with no humility,

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaade View Post
    Except no one is doing that. The timeline is that Blizzard made these changes and then the community pilloried them, in order to save face (because for some reason pride is super-important to Ion) he wrote something that no one believes anyway, instead of just acting with a modicum of humility.
    You posted what the tweets sound like, to which I responded why they sound like that. He literally had YT personalities, as well as regular people, asking Blizzard why they are designing something a certain way and telling them how bad it is to design it that way the entire time SL was being developed. Where do you think “pull the ripcord” came from?
    So yes, people are doing exactly that.
    I won’t say he’s a ring with or without humility as I don’t really know how he feels about it. One could argue that since the Tweets even exist that he is acting with humility simply by admitting they are trying to do better.

  9. #49
    Immortal roahn the warlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In your base, killing your dudes
    Posts
    7,550
    The only difference between Scryer and Aldor was cosmetic, and people still enjoyed it. Stop tying everything to power progression. Kthnxbye

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    You posted what the tweets sound like, to which I responded why they sound like that. He literally had YT personalities, as well as regular people, asking Blizzard why they are designing something a certain way and telling them how bad it is to design it that way the entire time SL was being developed. Where do you think “pull the ripcord” came from?
    So yes, people are doing exactly that.
    I won’t say he’s a ring with or without humility as I don’t really know how he feels about it. One could argue that since the Tweets even exist that he is acting with humility simply by admitting they are trying to do better.

    They're responding to his initial claims of, "it makes no sense in the narrative." Except it did, all the Covenants should have been, "our issues all have one common denominator, the Jailer. He's made trouble before so we need to unite against him again."

    Instead, they were "whatevs" until one of them inevitably got attacked since they were divided. So, even his reason of narrative only makes sense in a total ideot plot.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Once again that is spin to spit on Ion for because he won't admit your opinions are fact. Talk about acting with no humility,
    Absurdum ad reductio:

    The person standing next to the other person with clear injuries who have bruises on their knuckles had nothing to do with the other person being injured as they said that the other person walked into a door.

    There's too circumstantial evidence to believe what you believe.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaade View Post
    The person standing next to the other person with clear injuries who have bruises on their knuckles had nothing to do with the other person being injured as they said that the other person walked into a door.

    There's too circumstantial evidence to believe what you believe.
    YOu would never get a convicton solely on that. And again, we are talking aobut your opinions. You calling it a mistake is your OPINION. Not fact. What you really want is for him to admit to your opinion. Nothing more.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    YOu would never get a convicton solely on that. And again, we are talking aobut your opinions. You calling it a mistake is your OPINION. Not fact. What you really want is for him to admit to your opinion. Nothing more.
    What I meant to express was that then you'd look in that direction first because you had a bias of where to look first if only to eliminate them.

    I find it disturbing that your mind would go straight past the due process since this is the thing you react to as if I meant it that way.

    So bad economics numbers, rumours of bad retention, Ion saying at some point that these things were impossible and now suddenly can be done. There's too much circumstantial evidence to stay unbiased.

    Something people like you misunderstand, and disturbingly so, is that only courts and a jury of your peers are supposed to be unbiased, If the police were examining me really hard I would like them to have that bias if I was innocent (looking hard is different from reaching a foregone conclusion). Since people who have that kind of bias will be so much more convincing if they fund nothing.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaade View Post
    So bad economics numbers, rumours of bad retention, Ion saying at some point that these things were impossible and now suddenly can be done. There's too much circumstantial evidence to stay unbiased.
    YO are spinning and twisting his words to fit your narrative. That isn't evidence at all.

    Something people like you misunderstand, and disturbingly so, is that only courts and a jury of your peers are supposed to be unbiased, If the police were examining me really hard I would like them to have that bias if I was innocent (looking hard is different from reaching a foregone conclusion). Since people who have that kind of bias will be so much more convincing if they fund nothing.
    But the jury of your peers includes people like you. If everyone had a bias like you, NOBODY would get a fair trial. And innocent people have been ruined due to other people jumping to conclusions.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    YO are spinning and twisting his words to fit your narrative. That isn't evidence at all.
    That's no argument, if it was you would be able to explain it without using negative communication as you do in saying "not." It's a tell that you're unable to formulate an argument to respond to mine.

    [quote ]But the jury of your peers includes people like you. If everyone had a bias like you, NOBODY would get a fair trial. And innocent people have been ruined due to other people jumping to conclusions.[/QUOTE]
    This is an argument and it would have merit apart from the reality that jury members are heavily vetted by both, the defense and prosecution, are sequestered from civil society to avoid them developing a bias, and are cause for a mistrial if found to be biased.

    Your argument only makes sense if reality is ignored.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaade View Post
    That's no argument, if it was you would be able to explain it without using negative communication as you do in saying "not." It's a tell that you're unable to formulate an argument to respond to mine.

    [quote ]But the jury of your peers includes people like you. If everyone had a bias like you, NOBODY would get a fair trial. And innocent people have been ruined due to other people jumping to conclusions.
    This is an argument and it would have merit apart from the reality that jury members are heavily vetted by both, the defense and prosecution, are sequestered from civil society to avoid them developing a bias, and are cause for a mistrial if found to be biased.

    Your argument only makes sense if reality is ignored.[/QUOTE]Some get through even after heavy vetting. OF course that vetting won't matter if everyone has a bias. But you are just spinning and defleting to get away from the fact you have no evidence and won't admit as such. Since there is nothing but bad faith arguments coming from you, we are done here.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    T
    Some get through even after heavy vetting. OF course that vetting won't matter if everyone has a bias. But you are just spinning and defleting to get away from the fact you have no evidence and won't admit as such. Since there is nothing but bad faith arguments coming from you, we are done here.
    Evidence of the situation at Blizzard? True. Since Iberra speaking out openly against Ion would be horrible for morale. This is the case in any environment. Just talk to someone working in retail who has been thrown under the bus by their boss.

    There are several pieces of circumstantial evidence though.

    - There are things going to be put into WoW that Ion said would never be readded. This sudden shift in behaviour suggests that Ion is no longer given the same private protection from Ibarra as he did from Brack.

    - AB is hiring an Assistant Game Director for WoW. AB is notoriously stingy and WoW failed to pull in profit numbers even close to their other franchises. Given those things for what other reason could there be than AB has lost trust in Ion's ability to steer the franchise?

    - Then there's also Ibarra's quote about him never having told Ion what to put into the game. Notice the sophistry at play here? What he said is technically true. Given the formulation, I would guess Ibarra's boss told him that WoW was bleeding and Ibarra then told Ion to put perform triage while suggesting that the people in the beta that gave feedback might have had a point. There are many ways to give orders without explicitly saying them.

    - Then there's also that this the Anima transfer feels like malicious compliance since it actually does nothing practically. Your alt is useless unless they do Korthia to get Archived Research to upgrade with. If they farm Archived Research they get so much Anima there would be no need to transfer some. It's something that seems like a solution without actually being one.
    Last edited by Quaade; 2021-09-16 at 08:53 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •