Saikochoro

The funniest part of that argument? A large portion of those espousing it are at the same time working towards their OWN new version of the game. So, what makes their "new version" better than SCoRE's new version? And isn't it hypocritical to state that there shouldn't be any modifications to what the original Paragon Studios/NCSoft/Cryptic devs did, and then go on to make your own modifications at the same time? Because homecoming is evil and [insert righteous server here] is a divine gift to all players everywhere. Except the people who play homecoming. They are just lost heretics who must be saved.

I have seen less of this lately, but I too have seen straight up lies and misinformation, like the ranting about this codebase being somehow magically 'dead-end' when code does not quite work that way. :) I totally get that some people think anything other than what the _official_ developers put in the game is sacrosant and all else is player made crap, but that is nothing more than an opinion, it is not some statement of fact. Most of the player complaints about new/changed game content has been proven to be wrong anyway - the players simply forgot what went in when - and most of the things I see complained about were in or are in 'i24' at pretty much every turn. IMO, the petty CoH crowd has always been around and now they are pissed off that some portion of the players running the secret are involved in HC and should be punished. Thankfully, what they think of as punishment is awesome for the rest of us - they took thier ball and went elsewhere. It really has been, since the secret server reveal, like watching a bunch of school kids on the playground argue over who gets to touch the ball now. Funny and sad, all at once. I honestly think that all the rage over the secret private server wasn’t really justified. I’m not saying all would have, but I bet many of the ragers would have gladly accepted and invite to it and kept the secret if it was how they could play. Plus, in the end that is how the game survived and how the public can play now. Sure it took a long time. But anything other than gratitude is not really warranted.

Sums up my thoughts nicely. I think it would take away a lot of the beauty and fun of COH and the various combos you can create.

Most of what I see from the other servers seems to be entirely meant to disparage homecoming and knock it’s players. A lot of it is passive aggressive. Some of it is just straight up false like people claiming it’s a dead end. This appears to be in hopes of gaining more population. I however love homecoming and have no interest in the other servers. Pretty sure homecoming is far and away the absolute most populated server. Probably several more times than all others combined. So the other servers honestly appear to be jealous and are resorting to petty means.

Players are good or bad regardless of level or powerleveled, IMO. The years long, constant calling out of powerleveling as the reason for bad players is, IMO, silly and false. Also, I think players expect too many other players to play just like they do and this clouds the lens and makes poeple judge others harshly for no good reason. Completely agree with this.

I’m going to also suggest you start slotting up common lvl 25 IOs. Even though the initial investment can be steep if you don’t have a nest egg of influence it pays off really fast. I would also suggest crafting them rather than buying them. Crafting them is almost always going to be cheaper and will count towards memorization badges. Perhaps buy the recipes if you can get the cheaper than just buying them from the workbench. Also, keep track of your invention memorization badges. If you craft both level 25 and 30 IOs of a certain category you will memorize the recipes and no longer need them. I think the influence requirement also decreases. I think it’s usually something like 8 or 9 level 25 one and about the same number of level 30 ones in the same category (healing, damage, etc). Then it memorized both the level 25 and the level 30 recipes. Once you have these memorized it is significantly cheaper and will save you tons in the long run. I asked about common IOs maybe 2-3 weeks ago and only had like 3 million influence to my name. I know have all of the level 25/30 common IOs memorized and can easily slot up my alts for leveling. If you can, choose one character only to craft the common IOs. Then mail them to yourself for alts. It’s kind of a pain to do that, but saves a lot of influence once you get them memorized. I’m pretty sure memorization badges are character bound rather than account bound. I may be mistaken though, so someone correct me if I’m wrong. It’s a great investment for leveling and alts. Level 25 IOs are basically comparable to SOs, but they never become ineffective. Level 30 IOs are slightly better than SOs.

I’m loving bio armor. I use it on a lot of alts between stalkers, scrappers, brutes, and sentinels. Live mainly in offensive form. My staff/bio stalker is only mid 20s, but it’s been a blast so far. My StJ/bio stalker is mid 30s and is already a monster.

Hi, apologies, I snipped out most of the response quote to remove the growing thread response monster. Without regurgitating an actual multi factor anova, with r square, p values, z value, standard error, upper and lower limits, mean squares and all that crap, I'll summarize as best I can, and refer you to excel and data sets to run a sample analysis... The population can be considered known. The sample size is the participants in the thread. The argument that forum participants are not representative of the whole population can be accurate is the sample size is under 30. As sample size grows over 30, this is a non issue. Sample bias does exist, accounted for by confidence level and margin for error. As confidence level rises, standard deviation changes and upper and lower limits widen. Margin of error is calculated by 'critical value x S.E. of the statistic' There aren't subsets of subsets, as a sample is a portion of a population, here represented by the thread. Why? Because in the thread, data points are those against the change and everyone else, because the change has already been made. If it had not been made, it would be those in favor and everyone else. This is because of the postule of the "null hypothesis" This all indicates an analysis with two variables, at most three. An analysis run with either shows how one or two variables affect another, independent and dependent. This goes beyond a simple poll of data, in a vacuum. Why? A set data poll within itself is a population, not a sample. A sample is used to model a population and must be run through statistical formulae. A regression analysis will model that data set, accounting for error and confidence level over a population size, or without, as we can leverage central limit, Cheb's theorem and the rule of large numbers. In essence, the thread has enough data to accurately model the population with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of +/- 3%, supporting that the population in majority (51% or greater) is in favor of the change. I much prefer this way. Wish I could have done it this way. Would have prevented all those 80+ hr work weeks. But Im done with that job anyway. In a much better job now.

Thank you for accepting my apology. I do not think that you have anything to apologize. I leapt to conclusions and was very rude. That did deserve an apology. Thank you for your kind words. I am glad to have someone like you in our community. I currently only play on indomitable. Global handle @Saiko. Feel free to add me as a friend if you have any on that server. I’m in AK time zone though so probably only on really late compared to most of the world.

I have a question then to pose to both you and Saiko concerning this discussion: We have a representation of a subset of a subset of the player population here in this discussion: A. People who are playing(The whole) B. People who have decided to participate on the forum(Subset 1) C. People who have decided to voice their for/against concerns related to the DFB changes on these forums. (Subset of Subset 1) People not represented(but implied) are those who: a) do not have a forum account. b) have an account but have not seen this discussion c) have seen this discussion but do not proffer a dislike or like on the forums about DFB. d) do not offer a like or dislike in any medium. e) do not have an opinion that is applicable for what ever reason(leveled differently etc etc) And I am sure there are other variables that I am not accounting for in the broader sense as well in these regards. And I am sure there are other variables that I am not accounting for in the more microcosmic level. So given the uncertainties and number of variables that perhaps not a small number of people see, here is my question: How does one, with any confidence, come up with -only- a margin of error of +/- 3% to the statistical analysis of who is for/against these changes? The unaccountable variables would seem to skew the analysis to the point of being unrepresentative and thus making the evidence rather compelling that one should question the validation of the conclusion. 1. Bias then Your question is the reason I was quick to discount the earlier statistic. In my profession, this is solved in the risk assessment and population definition phase. We would first do an risk assessment: -who will even know about this change -who will have an opinion on this change -who is able to express an opinion on this change -who is likely to actually express AN opinion on this change -who is likely to express their own opinion on this change -who is likely to express an opinion that aligns with the actual change regardless of their actual opinion -who is likely to express an opinion with the majority regardless of their actual opinion -who is likely to express an opinion to be in the minority regardless of their opinion -who is likely to actually express their own opinion regardless of any circumstance -who would have expressed their opinion, but decided to refrain because they saw they were outnumbered -who would not have expressed their opinion, but did either to support the apparent minority or majority - queue as many other relevant question to determine what actually defines the population Then you have to get into the “why” for every one of those questions. Then you have to weigh how much risk each question has in influencing the opinion on anyone chosen in the sample. The risk of how often it may occur and the magnitude of the influence have to both be taken into account for each variable. Frequency and magnitude are different. A high frequency risk would be that the variable may affect day 10 people, but only slightly. A high magnitude risk is might only affect one person, but affect them so much that they make multiple posts posing the same point of view. This in turn can influence other variables and other subsets of the population. The risk assessment is used to identify the most risky subset of the population. In my profession we would test each subset separately as it they are defined differently and have a different risk assessed. Then you would test the accuracy and completeness of the population. This would be very difficult in a public forum and would require a lot of information gathering. Then once you are sure each population is complete and accurate you would pull a statistical sample based on the size of the population and it’s assessed risk. Then each opinion gathered in said sample would have to be tested for accuracy, which in this case would be anything biasing the person into expressing an opinion they don’t actually hold. Almost impossible to prove. Then if you were able to conclude that enough of the sample was accurate you could also conclude that the population it represents also follows the same conclusion. But it would only be for that particular subset of the population. Of course this is just how it works in my profession. Testing it in that manner would be next to impossible. But as Switchfade proved, as a purely mathematical proof there is a simpler way. He would have to fill you in on how to answer your questions in that view point.

A quick count of people disagreeing with the changes in this 11 page thread is 6 vocal people everyone else seems fine with the Dev's balancing efforts. Thanks for all your hard work Dev's There are plenty of thread about it all with differing opinions. The original comment I responded to implied that the community in whole needed and supported this change. That is completely false. There is a part of the community that does not support it. I never said one was bigger than the other. Only that it is wrong to assume the community supports it as a whole. It is better to say, “part of the community supports this”. That is undoubtedly true. Saying the community needs this however is fully subjective and shouldn’t really be said at all. I’m not going to say the community needs DFB nor will I say the community needed it to be nerfed. Either statement is purely based on opinion. I will says that the nerf was definitely wanted by some and very much opposed by others. Actually, not false, validated by data. 6 people disagree. Out of multiples of 10 agreeing. So, the majority approve, therefor in a community, that is majority support. Not everyone agrees with mandatory seatbelt laws. However, the majority approve, thus, the community supports it. You clearly have a problem understanding representative statistical samples. This thread is not representative of the population and cannot be used to accurately gauge the community as a whole. It can however show that the community is at least split on this issue purely due to the fact that there is more than one opinion expressed. Even if all posts were positive or all posts were negative it still would not be an appropriate statistical sample. That’s why I didn’t say, the community is not in support of the DFB change. I said, part of the community doesn’t support it. That is a true statement. Saying the majority of the community supports it is false and is not backed up by real data. Also, comparing a computer game to seatbelts is ridiculous. It’s just like in the open letter announcement someone comparing computer game opinions to gun safety. One is real world and one is a game. One has no influence on real world safety. One can result in real world death. That is not a good faith comparison in the slightest. Actually, I ran a statistical inference and regression anova analysis on this from the responses in the thread. Because there were more than 30 distinct sample responses, it is a statistically viable pool. With the alpha at 5%, confidence level of 95%, it is statistically accurate that the community supports this, as demonstrated by the sample numbers. Being very familiar with statistical analysis, a sample size of 30 or more has been shown to be statistically representitive of the population. Data, and proof. You were saying? Still clearly do not understand representative statistical samples. You can perform any test you want on a certain sample, but if the sample is itself is not representative all of the outputs are not reliable. Before you can even begin to pull a representative sample you must first clearly define the population and then be sure that the population is complete. Before you can define the population and test for completeness you have to do a proper risk assessment to set the proper parameters of the test. Then you must set materiality based on various risk factors after a thorough analysis of the population. Once you have done a risk assessment, set materiality, set the parameters, defined the population, and tested it for completeness you can then pull your sample. Pulling the sample itself has various methods, but it must first be based on a complete population and have proper parameters set. All that is to even have a populationto pull the sample. Sample size is directly related to risk. Then the sample itself must be tested for accuracy before it can be relied on. Neither of us has all of the data points necessary from this thread to have a complete and accurate population, let alone a reliable sample to form a reasonable conclusion with any degree of accuracy. Using buzzwords does not change the fundamentals of statistical analysis. I highly doubt you are familiar with statistical analysis based on your few posts about it and if you were I would never hire you to fill my team. Your posts show you clearly lack a basic understanding of stastival analysis. I appreciate your attempt to explain your assumptions. I don't appreciate, however, your rather rude comments about my understanding of statistics. I would ask that you please be more polite in the future and refrain from making unfounded assumptions of which you know naught. Your statements about statistics are based in fact, but misinterpreted. I will demonstrate with a few examples. Population is a set of all, in this case the players of the game. Sample is a set within a population. Population: N Sample: n Now, sample bias may be occuring, yes, which you sort of attempt to explain. To account for bias, a MARGIN FOR ERROR is considered, as I have mentioned. Margin for error: +/- If the sample size is >30, the sample is valid and statistically accurate. If the r square value is greater than 80%, the regression CLEARLY shows that one variable affects another. In this case this condition is met. If the value in the bell curve falls under 5%, the alpha, then the hypothesis has been "validated." Condition met. Even then, a sample can be proven WITHOUT a known population, as the median of a sample is the median of the population, this is mathematically known and proven. Further, central limit and laws of large numbers are mathematically observed laws. Additionally, although we must calculate sample size when population is unknown, as I have, this condition is ALSO MET. Population known. Sample size large enough. R square condition significant. Value under curve below alpha. Sampling error does occur, ACCOUNTED FOR. Statistically, the community IN MAJORITY (51% or greater) supports the change. If you want to debate "majority," please feel free. I would encourage you to then seek appropriate venues, such as Miriam Webster or any other such official publication concerning the commonly accepted meanings of English words If you want to debate statistics, there is no debate, simple mathematical rules, all established, and met in this case. Please refrain from incendiary statements concerning intellectual capacity. I assume you are highly intelligent, I ask you do reciprocate. Thank you for your respectful participation. My tone was incindiary and mocking. The last sentence I used was uncalled for and I am editing my original post. As it has been quoted already, it can serve as a lesson for others to not be rude. I apologize for the attack on intellectual capacity. You responded in a very professional and impressively calm manner given the tone of my post. +1 inf. You do seem an intelligent person. Perhaps it is our education and perhaps professional field differences that have led to this (and emotion on my part). In my profession mathematics rule in the actual results of a sample. But if the population is found to be in error in any manner it absolutely cannot be relied upon. Even though sample is based on risk, which we both agree upon, and even though math may state that the risk is accounted for, it still cannot be relied upon. The population must be complete and accurate first and foremost. If it is found to be in any way incomplete or inaccurate the sample is considered to be unreliable and must be repulled with the new information without exception. That is a lessen I had to very painfully learn early on in my career resulting in many long nights and weekends at work. I’m talking getting home at 3am and getting back up at 5am to go to work. That is most likely what colored my response and why I very quickly became heated as it was also something I had to teach my interns and staff in turn (resulting in even more long nights and weekends). I literally got grey hairs in my 20s due to the stress involved and almost lost my marriage. So it brought me back to a dark place in my life. Still that is not an excuse for rudeness. That said, I have always thought my profession did certain things wrong. Perhaps this is one of them. If this is the case, I apologize for setting it as absolute. I will do my best to refrain from personal attack such as what I did. I do apologize and hope that you accept my apology. Thank you for being civilized and calmly reprimanding my behavior.

A quick count of people disagreeing with the changes in this 11 page thread is 6 vocal people everyone else seems fine with the Dev's balancing efforts. Thanks for all your hard work Dev's There are plenty of thread about it all with differing opinions. The original comment I responded to implied that the community in whole needed and supported this change. That is completely false. There is a part of the community that does not support it. I never said one was bigger than the other. Only that it is wrong to assume the community supports it as a whole. It is better to say, “part of the community supports this”. That is undoubtedly true. Saying the community needs this however is fully subjective and shouldn’t really be said at all. I’m not going to say the community needs DFB nor will I say the community needed it to be nerfed. Either statement is purely based on opinion. I will says that the nerf was definitely wanted by some and very much opposed by others. Actually, not false, validated by data. 6 people disagree. Out of multiples of 10 agreeing. So, the majority approve, therefor in a community, that is majority support. Not everyone agrees with mandatory seatbelt laws. However, the majority approve, thus, the community supports it. You clearly have a problem understanding representative statistical samples. This thread is not representative of the population and cannot be used to accurately gauge the community as a whole. It can however show that the community is at least split on this issue purely due to the fact that there is more than one opinion expressed. Even if all posts were positive or all posts were negative it still would not be an appropriate statistical sample. That’s why I didn’t say, the community is not in support of the DFB change. I said, part of the community doesn’t support it. That is a true statement. Saying the majority of the community supports it is false and is not backed up by real data. Also, comparing a computer game to seatbelts is ridiculous. It’s just like in the open letter announcement someone comparing computer game opinions to gun safety. One is real world and one is a game. One has no influence on real world safety. One can result in real world death. That is not a good faith comparison in the slightest. Actually, I ran a statistical inference and regression anova analysis on this from the responses in the thread. Because there were more than 30 distinct sample responses, it is a statistically viable pool. With the alpha at 5%, confidence level of 95%, it is statistically accurate that the community supports this, as demonstrated by the sample numbers. Being very familiar with statistical analysis, a sample size of 30 or more has been shown to be statistically representitive of the population. Data, and proof. You were saying? You can perform any test you want on a certain sample, but if the sample is itself is not representative all of the outputs are not reliable. Before you can even begin to pull a representative sample you must first clearly define the population and then be sure that the population is complete. Before you can define the population and test for completeness you have to do a proper risk assessment to set the proper parameters of the test. Then you must set materiality based on various risk factors after a thorough analysis of the population. Once you have done a risk assessment, set materiality, set the parameters, defined the population, and tested it for completeness you can then pull your sample. Pulling the sample itself has various methods, but it must first be based on a complete population and have proper parameters set. All that is to even have a populationto pull the sample. Sample size is directly related to risk. Then the sample itself must be tested for accuracy before it can be relied on. Neither of us has all of the data points necessary from this thread to have a complete and accurate population, let alone a reliable sample to form a reasonable conclusion with any degree of accuracy. They way in which the sample is pulled and how parameters are determined is most important. Edit: deleted unnecessarily rude and demeaning sentences. I would give myself -1 inf I I could.

I wanted to revisit this question. I looked around on Reddit some and a lot of people have very high opinions on TWs. However, I am trying to decide which secondary to lean into first. From what I can tell a lot of people like pairing it with bio and rad. From what I understand, bio has higher damage, and rad has higher recharge. I’m sure there is definitely more to it than that. I know we are still early in the game, but has anyone had a chance to try TWs with both bio and rad? If so, can you comment with your thought? Also, anyone who has tried just one or the other.

I was under the impression that it is immediately forsaken. I may be completely wrong though.

Devs please forgive me for not first saying thank you for bringing this game back to life for me and thousands of others. No change you can make (in relation to the game) will ever have more effect than bringing it back in the first place. So despite my disappointment with DFB changes, it is water under the bridge. So thank you a thousand times over. Off topic somewhat: I have been replying to this thread a lot and I just gotta say: I have missed this sort of banter. I haven’t had it since I was really into the swtor community (game was killed for me a few years ago). Despite people having very different opinions than me I enjoy a good discussion. Even when people call me ridiculous or I do the same to them. I just just really enjoy engaging in a community discussion, even a heated one. Those are honestly more fun to me anyway. However, I understand that others may not enjoy this sort of banter. So I will do my best to not reply as much and focus on other threads instead. No promises of not replying at all though. I think each side has made good points and have had a good discussion. Devs have made up their mind for now and I’m satisfied with that. I just enjoy having a forum that I enjoy going to in addition to a game. So thank you devs for the game. Thank you for the changes. Thank you all posters for agreeing and disagreeing with me. I look forward to more :D

True the devs nerfed it. They also said they want to be careful how they approach it. Probably because they knew it would be contentious. Even so, just because the devs nerfed it does not invalidate opposing opinions. It only means the people in charge chose to do something that does not align with those opinions. It’s bound to happen. It will continue to happen. It’s the nature of games. However, whether or not the devs actions align with a certain groups opinions does not validate those opinions and invalidate another groups opinions. There reasoning for making the change may be exactly the same reason as some people have. It may also be for a completely different reason, but same end result. There may even be a time during the course of this game that the devs make a change and then decide to reverse it. That has happened in many games. Not saying it will happen, but it might at some point. Dev actions =\= absolute validation of one idea and invalidation of a different one.

Wrong. Some may have said its ruined, I however never did. It’s has received a nerf. Some people feel it wasn’t justified. That’s why they aren’t happy about it. Especially if it doesn’t really change behavior. I’ve seen anecdotal evidence stating that it has changed behavior. From what I saw last night it didn’t change anything. Other than encouraging more DFB runs to make up for the nerf. Either way, it is wrong to say their opinions don’t matter. Again, straight back to the “my opinion is valid, everyone who agrees with me is also valid, but any who disagree with me is not valid and shouldn’t be taken seriously”.

It’s quite telling when people who are happy with the change because it serves them make those who disagree with them out to idiots who don’t deserve to have opinions. It all goes back to the underlying root of the issue. It’s posts like yours that show that you believe only your point of view is valid and anyone who does not agree with you should not be taken seriously. This game is not the same as the live version. A nerf did happen that affects a portion of the player base negatively. It’s not a matter of who deserves what. It’s a matter of people believing others viewpoints don’t matter. If the nerf was so small as you put it, then why did it need to happen in the first place? I’m not saying the devs don’t think people’s opinions matter. None of my comments concerning the whys and the wherefores are directed to them honestly. They did what they did for their own reasons whether they be petty or good. I do express disappointment with the change, but it isn’t enough for me to not want to play or not appreciate the devs hard work. I do however have a problem with other players who feel that any view that does not fit in with their own is not a worthwhile view and then proceed to belittle said players. I’m sorry, but THAT’S just a ridiculous opinion that doesn’t need to be taken seriously. (Last sentence is sarcastic in tone in case that is missed). And it all keeps circling back to the same tired old base: you either play they way I think you should play or you can leave. Considering all the damage that was done to the game by Emmert following this mantra I really thought this time around things would be very different. Clearly I was mistaken. I can't wait until changes are made that they don't like. Cause I love a good schadenfreude sandwich, don't you? Actually I don’t want a change to happen that negatively affects them. It’s not fun and I don’t want that. I get that it will most likely happen at some point. It’s bound to, but doesn’t mean I want it to. I just don’t like the “my way of playing is better and therefore my opinion is better”. I get that DFB has changed. It’s not going to stop me from running it. It’s also not going to make me do story arcs. I don’t know why the devs made the change, and although I’m disappointed, I don’t honestly care much. I just don’t like the “my way is better” attitude expressed by many in support of this change.

It’s quite telling when people who are happy with the change because it serves them make those who disagree with them out to idiots who don’t deserve to have opinions. It all goes back to the underlying root of the issue. It’s posts like yours that show that you believe only your point of view is valid and anyone who does not agree with you should not be taken seriously. This game is not the same as the live version. A nerf did happen that affects a portion of the player base negatively. It’s not a matter of who deserves what. It’s a matter of people believing others viewpoints don’t matter. If the nerf was so small as you put it, then why did it need to happen in the first place? I’m not saying the devs don’t think people’s opinions matter. None of my comments concerning the whys and the wherefores are directed to them honestly. They did what they did for their own reasons whether they be petty or good. I do express disappointment with the change, but it isn’t enough for me to not want to play or not appreciate the devs hard work. I do however have a problem with other players who feel that any view that does not fit in with their own is not a worthwhile view and then proceed to belittle said players. I’m sorry, but THAT’S just a ridiculous opinion that doesn’t need to be taken seriously. (Last sentence is sarcastic in tone in case that is missed).

Haha I was going to say “Bodies” by Drowning Pool on repeat. Not surprised someone beat me to it.

DFB is a fun low level trial, if you do it once or twice. It’s too simple to not become monotonous if farmed exclusively. Again: you feel the leveling experience is too slow (even with 2xp) then there are way much better feedback paths to improve leveling speed that don’t rely on “please help me bore myself further by making a single thing the optimal leveling thing!” Given the volunteer work force, I’d also say “make tons of new equal trials” is not a viable solution either. But hey: how about making PvP matches give tons of XP? It may be monotonous, but so are radio missions and the like. Just because you don’t enjoy something doesn’t mean others don’t enjoy it. People always had the choice to do other content if they felt DFB was boring. Those who enjoyed getting passed the low levels quickly with an accessible trial found fun. But apparently to many in this thread they don’t matter. I don’t think more trials need to happen. I think that it was an unnecesssry change. Pure and simple. Why fix what isn’t broken? I’d be fine with PVP giving XP. I don’t see how that could hurt anything.

you realize nothing else was changed right? so those other options are still just as inefficient, just now DfB is inefficient as well. It's a common tactic, nerf things down to be as bad as everything else instead of buffing things to be as good as other options. I had a couple of friends that I played with, who have actually quit the game because of this (not this change to dfb, the fact that nothing else really gives any kind of reward equal to the time being put in). To quote one of them "Idk, while DFB was the reason for me quitting it should also be said that while it was nerfed if nothing else was buffed to fill the void of leveling properly then that will be a very annoying thing for me. If DFB can barely move you past 15, and DIB stops being effective at 30, something needs to pick the pace up. And if all there is left is questing for hours per level I won’t feel the wish to play." Let me get this straight. His friends were silly for quitting due to their play style being restricted, but your friends wanting to quit because they chose to do DFB even though they didn’t have to aren’t? Hypocritical much? You expressly indicated that his friends were silly and did not qualify your own friends with the same adjective. Hence it definitely gave the appareance of hypocrisy. I agree both accounts are anecdotal, but they were portrayed differently so as to make one favorable and the other not. You also continuously paint anyone who does DFB or power levels as mindless imbeciles. You may not have used the word imbecile, but your contempt for them clearly shows. I never said doing story arcs Is for stupid players, but you have definitely given the impression that the opposite is true. That gives even greater weight to the fact that many people seem to believe that you must play the same way as they do or you are a lesser person. That is complete BS and is not a good reason for change. Though that seems to be the majority of the reason people wanted the change in the first place. People enjoyed doing DFB. But their enjoyment is not important. Neither is their definition of content according to people like you. So yes, very hypocritical.

A quick count of people disagreeing with the changes in this 11 page thread is 6 vocal people everyone else seems fine with the Dev's balancing efforts. Thanks for all your hard work Dev's There are plenty of thread about it all with differing opinions. The original comment I responded to implied that the community in whole needed and supported this change. That is completely false. There is a part of the community that does not support it. I never said one was bigger than the other. Only that it is wrong to assume the community supports it as a whole. It is better to say, “part of the community supports this”. That is undoubtedly true. Saying the community needs this however is fully subjective and shouldn’t really be said at all. I’m not going to say the community needs DFB nor will I say the community needed it to be nerfed. Either statement is purely based on opinion. I will says that the nerf was definitely wanted by some and very much opposed by others. Actually, not false, validated by data. 6 people disagree. Out of multiples of 10 agreeing. So, the majority approve, therefor in a community, that is majority support. Not everyone agrees with mandatory seatbelt laws. However, the majority approve, thus, the community supports it. You clearly have a problem understanding representative statistical samples. This thread is not representative of the population and cannot be used to accurately gauge the community as a whole. It can however show that the community is at least split on this issue purely due to the fact that there is more than one opinion expressed. Even if all posts were positive or all posts were negative it still would not be an appropriate statistical sample. That’s why I didn’t say, the community is not in support of the DFB change. I said, part of the community doesn’t support it. That is a true statement. Saying the majority of the community supports it is false and is not backed up by real data. Also, comparing a computer game to seatbelts is ridiculous. It’s just like in the open letter announcement someone comparing computer game opinions to gun safety. One is real world and one is a game. One has no influence on real world safety. One can result in real world death. That is not a good faith comparison in the slightest.

you realize nothing else was changed right? so those other options are still just as inefficient, just now DfB is inefficient as well. It's a common tactic, nerf things down to be as bad as everything else instead of buffing things to be as good as other options. I had a couple of friends that I played with, who have actually quit the game because of this (not this change to dfb, the fact that nothing else really gives any kind of reward equal to the time being put in). To quote one of them "Idk, while DFB was the reason for me quitting it should also be said that while it was nerfed if nothing else was buffed to fill the void of leveling properly then that will be a very annoying thing for me. If DFB can barely move you past 15, and DIB stops being effective at 30, something needs to pick the pace up. And if all there is left is questing for hours per level I won’t feel the wish to play." Let me get this straight. His friends were silly for quitting due to their play style being restricted, but your friends wanting to quit because they chose to do DFB even though they didn’t have to aren’t? Hypocritical much?

Regardless of where you stand on the issues in the game, I’m just going to say that comparing opinions about what happens in a computer game to opinions about gun safety is not a good comparison. They are in completely different leagues and worlds for that matter. One involves experiences in a game that have no true real affect in life. The other could literally mean the difference between real world life and death.