120916-welp-thought-id-like-it-page-5

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6

Content
{| style="width: 100%;"

However, what's the evidence we have that is what's going on here. It seems a pretty healthy leap to say that the people with the information are lying, or at least being misleading, because people who do not have the information don't like it. I mean, fairly obviously, there are a LOT of people who like the difficulty of the game. Not that are ambivalent to it, but like and came here exclusively for the difficulty. This thread proves there are a lot of those people, previous threads prove there are a lot of those people, those old I Quit threads proved a lot of people who quit the game actually liked the difficulty. I mean, I get that it's not convenient information we got if you think dungeons are too hard, but you are asking us to make an incredible assumption, that Timetravel is lying and is specifically doing something his metrics and feedback is saying is a bad idea, based on nothing but interpretations that obviously, by the following lines, was not thought to be the case. I just don't buy that off the shelf, you'd need something a whole lot more concrete for me to just take as gospel that the guy in charge of Carbine's dungeons, the guy whose job it is to make sure they make more money than they lose in that department, is intentionally lying and doing the wrong thing for some inadequately explained reason. If you're specifically looking for it to not make sense because you don't want it to, you can make anything "vague". Timetravel's post said three things: -Players who run dungeons are more likely to stay than players who don't -Dungeon difficulty was fine and tuned exactly where it needed to be -Carbine really needed to work on the risk/reward system because the rewards were coming too slowly To accept that they were being intentionally vague with the wording, I'd have to assume their following statements were being said in direct contradiction to the supposed figures that must exist supporting the argument presented in this thread, and that Carbine were literally wasting their time with their subsequent changes based on whatever reason they might have to do that. That's what a lot of us don't buy into. We aren't all prepared to accept, as support for the argument to detune dungeon content, that our own experiences were obviously wrong, that the dungeon lead was cherry picking evidence and obviously ignoring some kind of very obvious contradictory evidence (which we have no evidence of), and that subsequent money spent on development was done knowing they were not attacking the root of the problem. It seems far more likely that Carbine do actually understand their metrics, that they actually do know how many people like and want to stay for the dungeon content versus how many leave for it, and that they made their choice to leave dungeon difficulty and instead address rewards based on that evidence. Hey, it could be wrong, Timetravel could, for some nebulous reason, be ignoring the information at his disposal and trying to mislead us. But Carbine has a much better reason to do what the information says is the best idea than anyone here has to reliably present his argument on his behalf. Basically, I have a lot more reason to trust Timetravel meant what he said and acted in the game's best interests than to think that someone here has found a twisting labyrinth of half-truths and deception that supports detuning the normal dungeons. Timetravel has less reasons to twist the truth than anyone here, his livelihood depends on making the right decision while our interests lie only in our own personal agendas. I just don't think I can accept the idea that I need to presuppose the conclusion (dungeon detunement) in order to say Carbine didn't know what they were doing (with their information) and people here in this thread did (admittedly without it). It might take a bit more than that for someone like me, who is, as stated, here because of the content's difficulty tuning, to relinquish parts of the game I love in support of a theory I do not assume to be the truth. I mean, this thread is literally arguing to make the dungeons easier. That's not something I feel can be honestly recommended from, at best, a position of ignorance (which is where the argument is striving to move from a position of being directly contradicted by almost all the evidence we have). If the argument is, "We do not personally know whether detuning the dungeons is a good idea or not, therefore we shouldn't make any decisions on that information," then the idea that we personally may not have all the information is valid. It'd be a debatable point, but it would be the conclusion you reach from not having the information. That's not what's being said here. People are saying that Carbine's stated direction is wrong, that dungeons need to be detuned despite what was said by Carbine, and that's not an argument I feel can be rationally made from the position that, if you read Timetravel's posts in certain lights, you might be able to get it to sound ambiguous. The post is unambiguous, Carbine reached the conclusion that dungeon difficulty is fine at its current level and directly said so. Timetravel wasn't being vague unless you really want his supporting statement to not be what it obviously means to support the conclusion that Carbine came to.


 * }
 * }

{| style="width: 100%;"

You're claiming that the course of action they're taking based on the metrics they've given is--in and of itself--evidence that they're taking the right course of action. The metrics they've given in fact do not validate the course of action they're taking, because the same metrics still occur even in conditions where that course of action would be a disastrous mistake. Therefore, you're claiming that the course of action they're taking based on invalid metrics is--in and of itself--evidence that they're taking the right course of action. The only way that can be true is if all possible courses of action that they can take--whether based on valid metrics or not--are the right course of action. Since there are in fact wrong courses of action that are available and possible for them to take in error, the only way they cannot possibly take those wrong courses of action is if they are incapable of error. That's why I think it does. I don't even know why you think it doesn't.


 * }
 * }