"
Look, cherry-picking quotes doesn't magically make your logic sound. You're basically arguing that because I mentioned economic factors, somehow that invalidates the entire point about data quality.
Incorrect. My argument here was that you don't know what a strawman is and falsely accused me of using one. All of your posts were complaining about economic factors. I pointed this out and referenced your posts. You screamed 'strawman'. Please demonstrate how they were "cherry-picked," (note: not strawmanning) if you're so certain.
"
Standard feedback isn't "valuable" just because GGG might glance at it - it's still fundamentally flawed data from a broken testing environment.
Says who? Now that your talking point of economy is dust, you resort to conjuring nonsense from your imagination.
"
Your little "thus it follows" conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Hilarious since it was derrived from your initial 'logic'. Thanks for disagreeing with yourself for us. If you can't even follow the flow of discussion, refrain from joining.
"
GGG balancing around Standard's existence doesn't make Standard players' feedback on new mechanics any less warped by their inflated resources and legacy gear.
Conterargument: it isn't warped. That's just your baseless claim. In fact, observing how the new mechanics interact with Standard offers far more valuable data for gauging how those mechanics should be permanently implemented.
"
You've clearly demonstrated that you cannot.
|
Posted byLeFlesh#9979on Jul 13, 2025, 4:06:37 PM
|
"
"
Look, cherry-picking quotes doesn't magically make your logic sound. You're basically arguing that because I mentioned economic factors, somehow that invalidates the entire point about data quality.
Incorrect. My argument here was that you don't know what a strawman is and falsely accused me of using one. All of your posts were complaining about economic factors. I pointed this out and referenced your posts. You screamed 'strawman'. Please demonstrate how they were "cherry-picked," (note: not strawmanning) if you're so certain.
"
Standard feedback isn't "valuable" just because GGG might glance at it - it's still fundamentally flawed data from a broken testing environment.
Says who? Now that your talking point of economy is dust, you resort to conjuring nonsense from your imagination.
"
Your little "thus it follows" conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Hilarious since it was derrived from your initial 'logic'. Thanks for disagreeing with yourself for us. If you can't even follow the flow of discussion, refrain from joining.
"
GGG balancing around Standard's existence doesn't make Standard players' feedback on new mechanics any less warped by their inflated resources and legacy gear.
Conterargument: it isn't warped. That's just your baseless claim. In fact, observing how the new mechanics interact with Standard offers far more valuable data for gauging how those mechanics should be permanently implemented.
"
You've clearly demonstrated that you cannot.
Right, so now you're telling me what I "screamed" when I can literally scroll up and see what I actually wrote. Cherry-picking is exactly what you did - you pulled fragments out of context to support your predetermined conclusion while ignoring the broader argument about data integrity.
Your "counterargument" about Standard offering more valuable data is laughably backwards. Standard players sitting on legacy gear and infinite currency aren't testing new mechanics under realistic conditions - they're stress-testing them in a fantasy environment that 99% of players will never experience. How exactly does watching someone trivialize content with mirror-tier gear provide useful balance data for the actual game?
And spare me the condescending lecture about following discussions. Your "logic" was flawed from the start, which is why pointing out its natural conclusion as absurd isn't me disagreeing with myself - it's me highlighting why your premise was wrong.
But hey, keep doubling down on defending bad data sources. I'm sure GGG really values feedback from players who can afford to brick 50 items testing a new crafting mechanic.
|
Posted byBlooper#6330on Jul 13, 2025, 4:11:05 PM
|
"
saying "August means 15th at most" is just making up your own definitions. August is August - the 29th is still August whether you like it or not.
And I'm not "antagonizing for fun" - I'm calling out inconsistent arguments. First it was about broken promises, now it's about what counts as "real" August. Pick a lane.
Sure, late August feels like they're pushing it to the wire, but that's still within what they said. If you want to be mad about something, at least be mad about what actually happened instead of moving the goalposts every time someone points out the timeline.
GGG said about 4 Months for league, let's calculate then:
0.2 release was in April 4th
April 4th - > May 4th = 1 month
May 4th - > June 4th = 2 month
June 4th -> July 4th = 3 month
July 4th -> August 4th = 4 month.
Well, we got new league on August 29th, which is not 4 month, but almost 5. Where's dude wrong about dates?
|
Posted byForsesGIT#6499on Jul 13, 2025, 4:30:28 PM
|
"
Cherry-picking is exactly what you did - you pulled fragments out of context to support your predetermined conclusion while ignoring the broader argument about data integrity.
Incorrect. I posted each of your statements about data and highlighted the common crutch they all stood on: economy. Now instead of just admitting this and saying, ' oh hey, let me ammend that statement,' you're trippling down on accusing me first of strawmanning, then cherry-picking twice without providing a single shred of evidence to your allegedly missing context (there isn't any).
"
Your "counterargument" about Standard offering more valuable data is laughably backwards.
You've already messed up. You couldn't even get past one sentence without misrepresenting my stance. The data from Standard is more valuable for Standard.
"
Standard players sitting on legacy gear and infinite currency aren't testing new mechanics under realistic conditions - they're stress-testing them in a fantasy environment that 99% of players will never experience.
Some Standard players, perhaps, but not all of them. Those would be outliers. There's plenty that wouldn't have a single divine in their stash and GGG can easily observe how all groups perform. You're trying really hard to ignore SSF's existence because it blows your nonexistent argument out of the water. Its really easy to tell who is doing what with what type of gear.
"
How exactly does watching someone trivialize content with mirror-tier gear provide useful balance data for the actual game?
Uh-oh, your mask slipped. This is what your fuss is really about: you don't think Standard is the actual game.
|
Posted byLeFlesh#9979on Jul 13, 2025, 4:33:48 PM
|
"
"
saying "August means 15th at most" is just making up your own definitions. August is August - the 29th is still August whether you like it or not.
And I'm not "antagonizing for fun" - I'm calling out inconsistent arguments. First it was about broken promises, now it's about what counts as "real" August. Pick a lane.
Sure, late August feels like they're pushing it to the wire, but that's still within what they said. If you want to be mad about something, at least be mad about what actually happened instead of moving the goalposts every time someone points out the timeline.
GGG said about 4 Months for league, let's calculate then:
0.2 release was in April 4th
April 4th - > May 4th = 1 month
May 4th - > June 4th = 2 month
June 4th -> July 4th = 3 month
July 4th -> August 4th = 4 month.
Well, we got new league on August 29th, which is not 4 month, but almost 5. Where's dude wrong about dates?
you're mixing up two different issues here. The "4 months" was their rough estimate for league cycles, not a hard promise carved in stone. Companies give estimates all the time that shift based on development needs.
But more importantly, that's not even what we were arguing about. The original point was whether August 29th counts as "August" or not - which it obviously does, regardless of whether it hits some arbitrary 4-month mark. You can't just switch from "August doesn't count as August" to "well what about the 4-month estimate" when your first argument falls apart.
If you want to complain about missed timelines, fine, but at least stick to one complaint instead of jumping around when someone calls out the logic.
|
Posted byBlooper#6330on Jul 13, 2025, 4:58:34 PM
|
"
"
Cherry-picking is exactly what you did - you pulled fragments out of context to support your predetermined conclusion while ignoring the broader argument about data integrity.
Incorrect. I posted each of your statements about data and highlighted the common crutch they all stood on: economy. Now instead of just admitting this and saying, ' oh hey, let me ammend that statement,' you're trippling down on accusing me first of strawmanning, then cherry-picking twice without providing a single shred of evidence to your allegedly missing context (there isn't any).
"
Your "counterargument" about Standard offering more valuable data is laughably backwards.
You've already messed up. You couldn't even get past one sentence without misrepresenting my stance. The data from Standard is more valuable for Standard.
"
Standard players sitting on legacy gear and infinite currency aren't testing new mechanics under realistic conditions - they're stress-testing them in a fantasy environment that 99% of players will never experience.
Some Standard players, perhaps, but not all of them. Those would be outliers. There's plenty that wouldn't have a single divine in their stash and GGG can easily observe how all groups perform. You're trying really hard to ignore SSF's existence because it blows your nonexistent argument out of the water. Its really easy to tell who is doing what with what type of gear.
"
How exactly does watching someone trivialize content with mirror-tier gear provide useful balance data for the actual game?
Uh-oh, your mask slipped. This is what your fuss is really about: you don't think Standard is the actual game.
Look, LeFlesh, you're still completely missing the point here. I never said Standard isn't the "actual game" - nice try twisting my words again. I said the data from Standard players using legacy gear isn't representative of how new content performs for the majority of the playerbase.
And no, SSF doesn't "blow my argument out of the water" - SSF players in Standard still have access to legacy items and old crafting systems that don't exist in league anymore. That's not the same testing environment as current league mechanics.
You keep saying I'm misrepresenting your stance, but then you literally just proved my point by admitting the data is only valuable "for Standard." That's exactly the problem - balance decisions need to be made for the current game state, not for people playing with discontinued mechanics.
But sure, keep deflecting with accusations of strawmanning instead of addressing the actual issue.
|
Posted byBlooper#6330on Jul 13, 2025, 4:59:53 PM
|
"
"
"
Look, cherry-picking quotes doesn't magically make your logic sound. You're basically arguing that because I mentioned economic factors, somehow that invalidates the entire point about data quality.
Incorrect. My argument here was that you don't know what a strawman is and falsely accused me of using one. All of your posts were complaining about economic factors. I pointed this out and referenced your posts. You screamed 'strawman'. Please demonstrate how they were "cherry-picked," (note: not strawmanning) if you're so certain.
"
Standard feedback isn't "valuable" just because GGG might glance at it - it's still fundamentally flawed data from a broken testing environment.
Says who? Now that your talking point of economy is dust, you resort to conjuring nonsense from your imagination.
"
Your little "thus it follows" conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Hilarious since it was derrived from your initial 'logic'. Thanks for disagreeing with yourself for us. If you can't even follow the flow of discussion, refrain from joining.
"
GGG balancing around Standard's existence doesn't make Standard players' feedback on new mechanics any less warped by their inflated resources and legacy gear.
Conterargument: it isn't warped. That's just your baseless claim. In fact, observing how the new mechanics interact with Standard offers far more valuable data for gauging how those mechanics should be permanently implemented.
"
You've clearly demonstrated that you cannot.
Right, so now you're telling me what I "screamed" when I can literally scroll up and see what I actually wrote. Cherry-picking is exactly what you did - you pulled fragments out of context to support your predetermined conclusion while ignoring the broader argument about data integrity.
Your "counterargument" about Standard offering more valuable data is laughably backwards. Standard players sitting on legacy gear and infinite currency aren't testing new mechanics under realistic conditions - they're stress-testing them in a fantasy environment that 99% of players will never experience. How exactly does watching someone trivialize content with mirror-tier gear provide useful balance data for the actual game?
And spare me the condescending lecture about following discussions. Your "logic" was flawed from the start, which is why pointing out its natural conclusion as absurd isn't me disagreeing with myself - it's me highlighting why your premise was wrong.
But hey, keep doubling down on defending bad data sources. I'm sure GGG really values feedback from players who can afford to brick 50 items testing a new crafting mechanic.
I tell you the secret everyone knows. GGG test their league mechanics on a fantasy environment that 99.9% of players will never experience, they have a console, they have a snapshots for every character in the game.
Or you really think that GGG developers accuratelly simulating their test scenarios, leveling up their characters, running 60 maps in a row to check drop rate?
Each league, with every new added mechanic is shown how far GGG devs from real players experience scenarios and how they test new content
It's ok, devs should work on their new content instead of playing, they haven't unlimited time, but they even haven't test groups, they haven't like a PTR server, Common test server to show the players new content and hear the feedback before implementation how it works for a bunch of games to not get back a negative feedback after league be released.
GGG test their content on new league, sometimes content even doesn't work properly, how this content was even passed QA, tell me.
"
temp leagues exist for a reason
There is no hidden reason for as you called "temp" leagues to test content before it will be added on Standard, it's not, that's ridiculous point from you. It's not how ARPG works.
The league goal is to refresh an economy and give new content. Sometimes you could even do not release new content and just refresh the economy and player's come, because this is how ARPG works.
What's than a problem to add the same untestend new content for Standard players
Last edited by ForsesGIT#6499 on Jul 13, 2025, 5:30:20 PM
|
Posted byForsesGIT#6499on Jul 13, 2025, 5:00:07 PM
|
"
"
"
saying "August means 15th at most" is just making up your own definitions. August is August - the 29th is still August whether you like it or not.
And I'm not "antagonizing for fun" - I'm calling out inconsistent arguments. First it was about broken promises, now it's about what counts as "real" August. Pick a lane.
Sure, late August feels like they're pushing it to the wire, but that's still within what they said. If you want to be mad about something, at least be mad about what actually happened instead of moving the goalposts every time someone points out the timeline.
GGG said about 4 Months for league, let's calculate then:
0.2 release was in April 4th
April 4th - > May 4th = 1 month
May 4th - > June 4th = 2 month
June 4th -> July 4th = 3 month
July 4th -> August 4th = 4 month.
Well, we got new league on August 29th, which is not 4 month, but almost 5. Where's dude wrong about dates?
you're mixing up two different issues here. The "4 months" was their rough estimate for league cycles, not a hard promise carved in stone. Companies give estimates all the time that shift based on development needs.
But more importantly, that's not even what we were arguing about. The original point was whether August 29th counts as "August" or not - which it obviously does, regardless of whether it hits some arbitrary 4-month mark. You can't just switch from "August doesn't count as August" to "well what about the 4-month estimate" when your first argument falls apart.
If you want to complain about missed timelines, fine, but at least stick to one complaint instead of jumping around when someone calls out the logic.
I'll answer with that: :)
Last edited by ForsesGIT#6499 on Jul 13, 2025, 5:29:39 PM
|
Posted byForsesGIT#6499on Jul 13, 2025, 5:11:59 PM
|
"
I never said Standard isn't the "actual game"
You're implying it here:
"
How exactly does watching someone trivialize content with mirror-tier gear provide useful balance data for the actual game?
And if that wasn't your implication, it's even worse: you're somehow claiming that playing a game with gear made in that game before some arbitrary cutoff date isn't useful data for balancing that gear in that game.
"
I said the data from Standard players using legacy gear isn't representative of how new content performs for the majority of the playerbase.
Neat, but guess what? We're talking about Standard. The data from Standard players IS representative of how new content performs in Standard. In fact, it is MORE representative than how it would perform in a spinoff league.
"
And no, SSF doesn't "blow my argument out of the water" - SSF players in Standard still have access to legacy items and old crafting systems that don't exist in league anymore. That's not the same testing environment as current league mechanics.
See above: we're talking about Standard. Implementing the content in Standard provides more valuable data for gauging how said content performs in Standard.
"
You keep saying I'm misrepresenting your stance, but then you literally just proved my point by admitting the data is only valuable "for Standard." That's exactly the problem - balance decisions need to be made for the current game state, not for people playing with discontinued mechanics.
You pivot from implying Standard isn't the actual game to now just claiming it isn't current.
Counterargument: Standard is current for those who play in Standard!
You're hopelessly lost.
|
Posted byLeFlesh#9979on Jul 13, 2025, 5:41:03 PM
|
"
I tell you the secret everyone knows. GGG test their league mechanics on a fantasy environment that 99.9% of players will never experience, they have a console, they have a snapshots for every character in the game.
Or you really think that GGG developers accuratelly simulating their test scenarios, leveling up their characters, running 60 maps in a row to check drop rate?
Each league, with every new added mechanic is shown how far GGG devs from real players experience scenarios and how they test new content
It's ok, devs should work on their new content instead of playing, they haven't unlimited time, but they even haven't test groups, they haven't like a PTR server, Common test server to show the players new content and hear the feedback before implementation how it works for a bunch of games to not get back a negative feedback after league be released.
GGG test their content on new league, sometimes content even doesn't work properly, how this content was even passed QA, tell me.
temp leagues exist for a reason
There is no hidden reason for as you called "temp" leagues to test content before it will be added on Standard, it's not, that's ridiculous point from you. It's not how ARPG works.
The league goal is to refresh an economy and give new content. Sometimes you could even do not release new content and just refresh the economy and player's come, because this is how ARPG works.
What's than a problem to add the same untestend new content for Standard players
Look, spare me the developer insider knowledge act. Yes, GGG has internal testing tools - that's completely irrelevant to whether Standard provides useful feedback data. You're conflating two entirely different issues.
The difference is that when GGG tests with their tools, they're at least attempting to simulate realistic player progression and power levels. Standard "testing" is the opposite - it's seeing how mechanics perform under completely unrealistic conditions that will never exist for normal players.
Your point about leagues not being test servers is exactly what I've been saying. They're not meant to be beta tests for Standard - they're the primary content delivery method. The fact that you think there's "no problem" adding untested content to Standard just proves you don't understand the fundamental design philosophy.
And frankly, your whole "refresh economy" explanation is surface-level understanding. Leagues exist because they allow for controlled testing environments with fresh economies AND balanced power levels. That's why successful mechanics can be properly integrated later.
But sure, keep pushing for Standard to become a dumping ground for whatever broken mechanics didn't get enough QA time. I'm sure that'll work out great.
|
Posted byBlooper#6330on Jul 13, 2025, 5:53:06 PM
|
