Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Achievement Point Discussion


Recommended Posts

@Rasimir.6239 said:Sometimes I wonder if we're even speaking the same language ...

@Gop.8713 said:The ap reward system was never built on the premise that all players have the same avenue to gaining ap (and the ap-related rewards) at any time they choose. The ap reward system was built in a way that offers players comparable routes to rewards, and it fulfills that goal. Routes to aquire ap change as the game changes, including some dropping off the face of earth, never to be seen again, as well as others introduced that weren't there before.

Of the 6k ap retired over the life of the game, many were designed to only be available for a limited time, while others were replaced by new ways to gain a comparable number of ap.Important to note here that I do not care about the number at all. I get so tired of arguing that water is wet that when I find something the other posters will accept I go with it. Other posters told me 6k was the number. Idc what the number is. The facts hold true regardless of the actual number of ap lost due to the design error. If you would like to substitute Y for 6k, as I did before a number was provided to me, that changes nothing . . .This is not a design error, it's working as intended.You are mistaken. LS1's temporary status is an acknowledged design error . . .This is an ever-evolving game, not everything in it is persistant, whether by design (like the yearly festifval achievements) or because an update down the line has consequences that weren't anticipated when the content was first introduced. The ap reward system was built so that it's robust enough to deal with these cases.And an acknowledged design error has exacerbated the limitations of the system. We can address it, or whistle past the graveyard . . .Even Season 1, which unarguable turned out less of a success than was hoped for, wasn't a design error as such.Anet disagrees with you . . .It was designed to be time-limited, non-presistent content, up to and including rewards and achievement points. It was later determined that this way of presenting content, while unarguably exciting and truly innovative, had too many drawbacks to continue that way, but all following systems, including the one for achievement rewards, have been built to include the fact that parts of season 1 were non-persistant and to make up for it in other ways.In other words, it was a design error . . .

@Gop.8713 said:The frustrating bit about all this is that everything I have said up to this point in this post is objectively, provably true.Maybe it's not so much a different language and more a parallel universe with different rules and different logic?We can go one by one if you like and you can identify the non-facts, as you please. The first fact I presented was this: If X and Y are both positive integers, the sum of X plus Y will be greater than either X or Y alone and as X increases, the sum of X plus Y will also increase . . .Is this a fact or an opinion, to your mind . . ?What you percieve as objective, provable truth hinges on assumptions that are not objectively true at all, but very much subjective.Identify them . . .The system does not strive to give everyone the exact same way to get to the exact same end goal.And nothing that I stated in that post to that point had implied otherwise. I've reread it and I cannot find any normative language at all up to that point. Correct or apologize pls . . .It is a living, changing system that gives people comparable (but different) ways to progress along at different times, and that does not have any one specific point that is meant to be reached by everyone eventually. No matter what snapshot you take, it doesn't work as basis for arguments of equality since the system is not built to support such a snapshot to begin with, and this is by design. It may not be the kind of design you prefer, but it designed that way, and a very robust design that doesn't get broken by unexpected changes in content delivered, including content that does make previously delivered content obsolete.I'll remind you here that I have no preference. The consequence of the error that can still be remedied relates entirely to the cosmetic rewards which are of little interest to me. But as the consequence created an inequity and a remedy is available, I see no reason not to pursue it . . .Any static system would either break with more progressive updates or put very strict constraints on future content development to preserve previously built content.My solution would actually be a lot more flexible than the current system. They could continue to introduce ap rewards as desired, require players to acquire the 'expansion era' ap prior to participating in the new system, and introduce the rewards at the same pace as previously designed, if desired . . .Sometimes change is inevitable, and the current ap reward system works very well with change.That's highly debatable, but my proposed change would certainly increase its responsiveness to change, which you identify as desirable. So another vote in favor of the solution hereIt may not be to your liking that things change (including avenues towards goals we've set for ourselves), and not all changes are to my liking, either, but change is not only a result of design errors, but more often a healthy thing to improve what's there. As long as the ap reward system is open-ended and reacts to changes in a way that opens new avenues to ap gain where old one closes there is no practical problem in this system. Your theoretical constructs fail to acknowledge that the system is non-static and open-ended, and that's why they fall apart at the foundation (at least according to how logic works in my parallel universe ;) ).Your universe has suddenly become very interesting to me. Can you identify the new avenues of ap gain that cover the gap, meaning avenues that are not available to players who accessed the content lost to design error . . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 312
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Gop.8713 said:

This is not a design error, it's working as intended.You are mistaken. LS1's temporary status is an acknowledged design error . . .Again, the lost access to LS1's
story
is indeed acknowledged as a mistake by devs. That's not what we're talking about however. We're talking about lost access to season 1
achievements
. And the devs don;t seem to consider
that
a mistake, and definitely never made any statement to that end.

In fact, the same design with access to some achievements getting removed is something that was repeated many times over long after that Anet statement you keep bringing up (with the latest case happening this year), which suggests very strongly that devs think it's perfectly okay.

Basically, one of the main arguments you keep bringing up to support your idea is completely false.

It is not the first or second time i am bringing it to your attention in this very thread, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

This is not a design error, it's working as intended.You are mistaken. LS1's temporary status is an acknowledged design error . . .Again, the lost access to LS1's
story
is indeed acknowledged as a mistake by devs. That's not what we're talking about however. We're talking about lost access to season 1
achievements
. And the devs don;t seem to consider
that
a mistake, and definitely never made any statement to that end.

In fact, the same design with access to some achievements getting removed is something that was repeated many times over long after that Anet statement you keep bringing up (with the latest case happening this year), which suggests very strongly that devs think it's perfectly okay.

Basically, one of the main arguments you keep bringing up to support your idea is completely false.

It is not the first or second time i am bringing it to your attention in this very thread, by the way.

Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .

I am extremely pleased that this is the weakest point in my position that you can find to attack. Thank you . . .

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:I wonder...if this 'solution' to the 'problem' is in everyone's best interest, why are so few players (if there are more than one) advocating it?

My guess would be that it's just not very important . . .

Just curious, but have you also stopped to wonder why such a small but extremely passionate few posters are so eager to deny the problem's existence, rather than ignore it as irrelevant or seek a solution . . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to this: some of the old achieves are now gone be it by design or error. There is an opportunity cost in setting up those old ap, and the benefit ito the whole community is evidently less than other options. I. E other content that ALSO gives ap. This is only an issue if you are focused on what other people have, and not on what you can get.

A player with 10000 /played will have more ap than a player with 500 /played. If however you compare the ap opportunities available for the first say 500 hours of /played by both players, 1 starting in 2010 and 1 in 2020 you will see that the new player has the richer ap opportunities. Compare ap' points available over a lapsed time period and not a snapshot in time of you want to objectively compare old v new player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:It boils down to this: some of the old achieves are now gone be it by design or error. There is an opportunity cost in setting up those old ap, and the benefit ito the whole community is evidently less than other options. I. E other content that ALSO gives ap. This is only an issue if you are focused on what other people have, and not on what you can get.Important to note that this is only true once the unique rewards stop. Until then, an astute player will be able to discern that the most recent half dozen or so rewards will be forever out of their reach . . .A player with 10000 /played will have more ap than a player with 500 /played. If however you compare the ap opportunities available for the first say 500 hours of /played by both players. 1 starting in 2010 and 1 in 2020, you will see that the new player had the richer wp opportunities. Compare timelines not a moment in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:It boils down to this: some of the old achieves are now gone be it by design or error. There is an opportunity cost in setting up those old ap, and the benefit ito the whole community is evidently less than other options. I. E other content that ALSO gives ap. This is only an issue if you are focused on what other people have, and not on what you can get.Important to note that this is only true once the unique rewards stop. Until then, an astute player will be able to discern that the most recent half dozen or so rewards will be forever out of their reach . . .A player with 10000 /played will have more ap than a player with 500 /played. If however you compare the ap opportunities available for the first say 500 hours of /played by both players. 1 starting in 2010 and 1 in 2020, you will see that the new player had the richer wp opportunities. Compare timelines not a moment in time.

Yes old achieves that offer old rewards are gone- this will probably happen in the future too. It still boils down to opportunity cost, add the old content at cost x for value Y, or produce new content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:It boils down to this: some of the old achieves are now gone be it by design or error. There is an opportunity cost in setting up those old ap, and the benefit ito the whole community is evidently less than other options. I. E other content that ALSO gives ap. This is only an issue if you are focused on what other people have, and not on what you can get.Important to note that this is only true once the unique rewards stop. Until then, an astute player will be able to discern that the most recent half dozen or so rewards will be forever out of their reach . . .A player with 10000 /played will have more ap than a player with 500 /played. If however you compare the ap opportunities available for the first say 500 hours of /played by both players. 1 starting in 2010 and 1 in 2020, you will see that the new player had the richer wp opportunities. Compare timelines not a moment in time.

Yes old achieves that offer old rewards a e gone. It still boils down to opportunity cost, add the old content at cost x for value Y, or produce new content.

Sure, that's why I proposed a solution with such a low dev cost. Pleased to see you come around :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:I'm gonna have to read your post again now :)

Basically I just said they should pull unique rewards from the track and have it repeat moving forward. This would eliminate the problem of unique rewards blocked by lost ap but still preserve total ap as 'bragging rights' for ppl to whom that is important. The rewards could then be reintroduced, if desired, by subsequent meta cheeves or bday's or w/e as devs see fit, provided all currently unlocked rewards have been obtained through the existing ap track . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Gop.8713" said:Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .

Point out a statement from Anet where they, to use your words, acknowledged the loss of achievement points as a design problem, or how hard they are working to "correct" that error and I will concede your point. Otherwise you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts.

Edit: for someone who likes facts so much you provide zero to prove your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ye OK I get that, if the effort to get the reward is comparable to the original in terms of /played and difficulty and we are talking about plugging in a variable value (I. E reward identifier into an existing process that offers a placeholder for rewards) then that doesnt sound expensive from a development point of view and must weigh up favourably against other content I suspect if there was demand for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Gop.8713" said:Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .

Point out a statement from Anet where they, to use your words, acknowledged the loss of achievement points as a design problem, or how hard they are working to "correct" that error and I will concede your point. Otherwise you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts.

Edit: for someone who likes facts so much you provide zero to prove your point.

Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Ye OK I get that, if the effort to get the reward is comparable to the original in terms of /played and difficulty and we are talking about plugging in a variable value (I. E reward identifier into an existing process that offers a placeholder for rewards) then that doesnt sound expensive from a development point of view and must weigh up favourably against other content I suspect if there was demand for this.

Yes exactly. Not very impt, but worth considering given the lost ap, particularly since we just hit a threshold with the second back and ap will likely be introduced more evenly moving forward rather than in bursts as it was during the expansion era. Thank you for taking the time to read and understand before replying. In six pages, I think you may be the first. I feel like you deserve a prize :)

I don't have one, I was just saying :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Gop.8713" said:Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Gop.8713" said:Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

I think you may be trying too hard. Let's go step by step. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

I think you may be trying too hard. Let's go step by step. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

Hey how about this. When the achievement track reaches 60,000(the highest datamined amount) just have it cycle back through again, thus allowing those who missed achievements to get the skins. No need to remove anything, fix anything.

Edit: I don't know why I keep replying, however. Bored in line at Mcdonalds, and tired of reading other threads on Swtor.com, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

I think you may be trying too hard. Let's go step by step. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

Yes. Let's go step by step. Provide a link in your post first and you'll see what exactly they acknowledged there.Besides that, you are talking about LS1, LS1 provided 1.6k of the missing AP, the rest are from Festivals and many other sources. Are we only gonna talk about the Story AP of Season 1, or you have some developer quote stating anything about the festival, or any other, missing AP?

As for "my" side:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Game_updates/2020-02-11

The Truly Nimble Onslaught achievement has been added to the pool of Drakkar achievements.This achievement allows for a higher hit-count threshold.This achievement rewards a new title.The Nimble Onslaught achievement is no longer attainable, and it will be hidden if your progress was incomplete.

They removed an achievement just 16 days ago, are you saying they started caring about achievement points being missing in the last 16 days or so? This is a fact, that proves my point, now provide some links to prove yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Gop.8713" said:Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .The facts being that they kept removing achievements long after they said they'd hope to bring LS1 back? The fact that, when they were redoing the holiday achievements, so that each new year would not bring another copy of the same base achievement set, with the previous year set not being available, they didn't retroactively apply it to all the past achieves (even though they could)? The fact that when they brought Queen's Gauntlet back, instead of bringing the achieves back as well they made a completely new copy instead? Or the fact, that, contrary to what you claim, devs never said they regretted the fact that the achievements are no longer available?Those facts?

Just curious, but have you also stopped to wonder why such a small but extremely passionate few posters are so eager to deny the problem's existence, rather than ignore it as irrelevant or seek a solution . . ?Who knows, maybe because, like they've already mentioned many times over, they think your "fix" to that irrelevant problem is going to cause not so irrelevant damage to the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Gop.8713 said:

@Gop.8713 said:Don't need to, I have other evidence to support my perspective, namely the fact that anet has acknowledged LS1's temporary status as a design error and left all subsequent story ap in place moving forward. There is every reason to believe LS1 would be consistent if possible . . .

I want to see that quote where they acknowledged the temporary achievement points as a design error. They left all subsequent story AP in place because it wasn't temporary content, nothing about the missing AP though.

In fact in this month alone they made another achievement impossible to acquire by replacing it with another one. And it's not the only case, Exalted Legend, Primordial Legend and Illustrious Legend were both retired as well, Garnet Sanctum, Troll's End and the miniature achievements were also retired. A lot of these are fairly recent, which means the "design error" was the temporary story and nothing to do with the achievements. There is more than enough evidence to support the opposite perspective to yours so you need to try a bit harder and provide some actual facts to support yours.

I think you may be trying too hard. Let's go step by step. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

Yes. Let's go step by step. Provide a link in your post first and you'll see what exactly they acknowledged there.Besides that, you are talking about LS1, LS1 provided 1.6k of the missing AP, the rest are from Festivals and many other sources. Are we only gonna talk about the Story AP of Season 1, or you have some developer quote stating anything about the festival, or any other, missing AP?

As for "my" side:

The Truly Nimble Onslaught achievement has been added to the pool of Drakkar achievements.This achievement allows for a higher hit-count threshold.This achievement rewards a new title.The Nimble Onslaught achievement is no longer attainable, and it will be hidden if your progress was incomplete.

They removed an achievement just 16 days ago, are you saying they started caring about achievement points being missing in the last 16 days or so? This is a fact, that proves my point, now provide some links to prove yours.

You didn't answer the question. Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

To answer your question, yes I am only speaking of content lost to error. Intentionally lost content would be intentionally lost. As mentioned many times, your reluctance to engage with facts has led me to use the numbers that you provide. If you are now arguing you provided those numbers in error and would like to adjust them, that's fine. The existence of the number is sufficient, it's value is not impt to my point . . .

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Gop.8713 said:Nor is this the first or second time that I am refuting it. If you would like to point out a statement from anet about how excited they are that those ap are lost, or how much they regret the continued availability of subsequent story ap and how hard they are working to correct that error, I will concede your point. Otherwise, you might consider changing your mind to align more closely with the facts . . .The facts being that they kept removing achievements long after they said they'd hope to bring LS1 back? The fact that, when they were redoing the holiday achievements, so that each new year would not bring another copy of the same base achievement set, with the previous year set not being available, they didn't retroactively apply it to all the past achieves (even though they could)? The fact that when they brought Queen's Gauntlet back, instead of bringing the achieves back as well they made a completely new copy instead? Or the fact, that, contrary to what you claim, devs never said they regretted the fact that the
achievements
are no longer available?Those facts?So, to be clear, you have nothing to refute the presumption that if LS1 was still available, it would be treated the same as all of the other LS releases. But rather than address that, you prefer to compare it to festivals. Seems desperate . . .Just curious, but have you also stopped to wonder why such a small but extremely passionate few posters are so eager to deny the problem's existence, rather than ignore it as irrelevant or seek a solution . . ?Who knows, maybe because, like they've already mentioned many times over, they think your "fix" to that irrelevant problem is going to cause not so irrelevant damage to the game?The only cost would be to players who feel the advantage gained by the design error should continue. I was surprised to find that there were any, but if you feel the damage to them is relevant, you must necessarily feel the existing damage to players is relevant. It's the same damage, just to different players. You may recall when I pointed this out to you three weeks ago, but instead of just acknowledging that you care about some players and not others, which is completely within your rights, you've twisted yourself into knots trying to deny the existence of the players you don't care about and the damage the existing situation has caused them . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gop.8713 said:design errorDo you have a link where ANet explicitely called season 1 a design error? I remember them saying that in hindsight it turned out to be a mistake, but that's very different from a design error. The design in itself was in fact pretty solid for what it set out to do. The mistake was not in the design but in the fact that an MMO turned out to not be a good medium for releasing continuous time-limited story content. Even that had nothing to do with achievements, but instead with people being unable to catch-up on the story they had missed.

@Gop.8713 said:So, to be clear, you have nothing to refute the presumption that if LS1 was still available, it would be treated the same as all of the other LS releases. But rather than address that, you prefer to compare it to festivals. Seems desperate . . .The majority of unavailable ap come from old festivals and wvw seasons. Season 1 story ap is almost tiny in comparison. Basing your arguments solely on Season 1 and ignoring the larger part of unavailable ap does seem a bit desperate to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Gop.8713 said:You didn't answer the question.

You didn't either.

As mentioned many times, your reluctance to engage with facts has led me to use the numbers that you provide.

You are the one that doesn't want to engage with facts... where is the link with the developer quote?

I don't feel that providing you with facts is constructive, as you do not find them persuasive. It would be a waste of my time to provide you with something you will deny if you don't provide it yourself, as you did with the original ap number . . .

Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@Gop.8713 said:design errorDo you have a link where ANet explicitely called season 1 a design error? I remember them saying that in hindsight it turned out to be a mistake, but that's very different from a design error. The design in itself was in fact pretty solid for what it set out to do. The mistake was not in the design but in the fact that an MMO turned out to not be a good medium for releasing continuous time-limited story content. Even that had nothing to do with achievements, but instead with people being unable to catch-up on the story they had missed.

@Gop.8713 said:So, to be clear, you have nothing to refute the presumption that if LS1 was still available, it would be treated the same as all of the other LS releases. But rather than address that, you prefer to compare it to festivals. Seems desperate . . .The majority of unavailable ap come from old festivals and wvw seasons. Season 1 story ap is almost tiny in comparison. Basing your arguments solely on Season 1 and ignoring the larger part of unavailable ap does seem a bit desperate to me.

The first fact I presented was this: If X and Y are both positive integers, the sum of X plus Y will be greater than either X or Y alone and as X increases, the sum of X plus Y will also increase . . .Is this a fact or an opinion, to your mind . . ?

That's the one I have you working on rn as I recall. How is it coming . . ?

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:The term design error is really irrelevant, a design error is simply a mistake/deliberate feature with an unforseen effect that may or may not be bad. No design is perfect, so in reality all good designs are living - they evolve over time.

The semantics are just a distraction. We were calling it something else for a while, idr what, and someone complained about it so we started calling it this, now someone wants to complain about that. Anything to avoid the actual subject, where they know they have a losing position . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Gop.8713" said:I don't feel that providing you with facts is constructive, as you do not find them persuasive. It would be a waste of my time to provide you with something you will deny if you don't provide it yourself, as you did with the original ap number . . .

So you base your entire argument on "facts" that you do not possess. Tells a lot about your argument.

Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

What did they acknowledge? Post a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@"Gop.8713" said:I don't feel that providing you with facts is constructive, as you do not find them persuasive. It would be a waste of my time to provide you with something you will deny if you don't provide it yourself, as you did with the original ap number . . .

So you base your entire argument on "facts" that you do not possess. Tells a lot about your argument.

Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

What did they acknowledge? Post a link.

I'm not asking you about them. I'm asking you about you. Do you recognize that reality or not? Do you acknowledge that anet has recognized that LS1 was a design error, specifically as to its temporary nature . . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...