Forums-->General game forum-->
1|2|3|4
| Author | Watchers Guild |
|---|
@Lady sofiouta, you do know that at a lot of events, it just get's started and then on day 2-3 it gets adjusted due to appeared difficulties and sometimes later on again as well. Things don't get tested with the administration playing every single possible battle, they release it and we test them out for them. Same goes for new classes and factions, it gets adjusted tons of times. That's why the WG allready had an update as well reducing the difficulty of the hunt quests. Don't go into thinking that they only release something when it has been perfected. The administration are people and people make mistakes, so they can think rule 10 is valid, but that does not make it true as well.
Also you didn't show me that rule 9 is still valid, you made assumptions, as in made things up as you saw fit.
@liuker, and people have to find yet even one battle link, I dare you, find one, just one.
In short, the WG still has lot's of problems, especially the hunt quest ones. It does not make sense that a higher level 17-21 gets less troops of the exact same hunt quest than a level 14-15. Others have pointed out that the levels 14-15 is getting played more during the event while the higher ones less and by grabbing just those records this causes the inconsistency for WG. | Lawton, we dont disagree on that point.How have you figured out that i think everything is perfected before we get it?Please comment the sentence i wrote that drives you to that conclusion so i can test if my english are still understandable by others.About 9,please read again carefully our previous posts.You are saying that it is not possible to have both increasing difficulty when leveling up and pre-done battles.I am saying that your syllogism is wrong because the levels are limited,so the increase difficulty has a limit too.I then assume a method to demonstrate you how it is possible. I dont know if the developer is using the same method, but if there exists a way to make something possible, then it is not impossible. This is base logic that it is known to humanity the past 2.5k years.On the other hand your logic is like the logic church had in the middle ages when accusing women for witchcraft. It is obvious that you dont want to understand as liuker said.
I didnt want to comment your response at him at post 30 earlier but i will do it now to prove how buggy your logic is.Seeing no DE in the top record holders list cant prove that there are not some DE better than you in hunting.the absence of DE shows that there are a lot of good DE hunters, so the records were distributed more evenly among them and no one could maintain a high enough total to be listed.If you where among them, you wouldnt have a problem to win the hunt task.
I also suck at a hunt and saw people beating two times what i can win.Should i call the admins liars too when i get this hunt for a task?I got the empirical evidence that this hunt can be won in far greater difficulty than my skill allows.The admins have that empirical evidence for all the tasks.That's why they say "a posteriori". Having more knowledge than you doesnt make them liars. | @Lady sofiouta, how? By saying things like: 'If the programmer of the game says the battles are doable a posteriori, then they are.' Leaving out any doubt about it whatsoever, even certain needed changes when things appear not to be so which the administration has done and will keep on doing in the future.
Ironic that you should talk about the middle ages witchburning church logic, since you are behaving with that exact same attitude by accusing me without having anything to disproof it, making up assumptions as you go along. Also there is no syllogism, since there cannot be reached a conclusion due to the lack of any kind of proof.
Also I never said that there were no better DE hunters than me. Nice try to dance around the point some more by making up even further assumptions. It seems certain people are still too dense even after explaining it in post #38, so I'll explain once again what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is when something appears to be untrue which is misleading. Rule 10 falls into this category. | | Hey A&D, don't you have a private forum ? You're wasting our space with such threads. | | Not everyone who would read it is A&D though. ;) | | @Lawton, you called me gullible previously, now you are calling me dense.I dont like it, so i stop here. | @Lady sofiouta, if you don't want to adress the things that you yourself have said then just stop replying but don't go into playing the victim so not to adress and avoid it. It's the same thing as sticking your head in the sand. When you say things like: 'If the programmer of the game says the battles are doable a posteriori, then they are.' shows that you are too trusting and will believe everything they state, so will fall for it even when they make mistakes whether intentionally or not. And gullible means exactly that: 'easily tricked because of being too trusting'.
Dense means that people have a hard time understanding, since I repeated a few times what my problem was and yet you still created assumptions that had nothing to do with it and tried to divert and put the focus there, then yes it is clear you still did not understand the issue and that is what the term dense means.
We have come at an age where people refer to terms like gullible and dense automatically as insults, while they actually have specific meanings to use them for. It's common when people move along the herd and repeate everything that gets said in certain situations without a thought about it and suddenly it has been set in stone because it got repeated enough for it. | Hey A&D, don't you have a private forum ? You're wasting our space with such threads.
I don't saw any announcement about you or some others has bought this game or providing server space !!
Hmm .. may b that news also lost into translation ;p | for Lawton:
While I can see what you are saying in We have come at an age where people refer to terms like gullible and dense automatically as insults, while they actually have specific meanings to use them for.
This does miss the point that the meaning, while specific is also implying a negative characteristic to someone, and is therefore considered an insult IT would be hard pressed to find a scenario where these were not when looking at the specific meaning, also negative to someones abilities or character. They are not mutuall exclusive events - you can understand its meaning - (I assure you I do understand it) and yet still perceive it as something which is needlessly negative and a slur on someones characteristics and abilities (AKA an insult)
For example you accused me I believe of being gullible because I choose to believe that they may tell us the truth (when their is no proof currently) rather than believing that they are lieing about rule 10 (when equally there is no proof to it). I can accept that you may simply mean that you perceive I believe things too easily - though in the context of a situation which I do not believe to be so clear cut as to be "easily convinced" I think it reasonable to conclude that the term gullible was put out as an attack on the character of the poster rather than on their arguments (as mentinoed by yourslef previously the "ad hominem" argument.
In return I could say that someone was dense- either from a literal point of view from its physics meaning - or from its social usage to be someone who is incapable of picking up information and ideas that others find straight forward. While in this case I do believe you and a number of people to be resistant to taking on alternative points of view, I would not go so far as to saying you were dense, as putting things in those terms, in my mind, is insulting. Simply you evaluate the balance of evidence in a different way to me, as is your right. IT would be wrong to conclude that you only have reached a different opinion because of your inability to see my view.
As such, I think it was appropriate that people viewed those points as insulting - may be in a face to face conversation with afriend about it when you know how someone expresses themselves it may not be so, but in simple text across cultural variations, then yes I think it is reasonable to be slightl offended by those remarks. PS not that it bothers me, words from people I ahve never met are never going to ruffle my feathers, though I do enjoy the odd little debate :) | Fortune genies (721), Tamed minotaurs (485)
0-stared by Lawton
https://www.lordswm.com/war.php?warid=753020202<
2-stared by APAHAP (ru name romanised)
https://www.lordswm.com/war.php?warid=752673250< | @Sylin
God himself sent you! | for Sylin:
That 2-star battle was far from perfect too. It must be better to play with more witches for the use of delay and chastise shrews. I also think striving speed is an obvious talent choice for that kind of battle. | for Sylin:
Nice job! But this still won't kill Lawton's conspiracy theory
for Majblomma:
Agreed. Using striving speed instead of tactic could better, and that's probably why it's not a 3-star battle | To be fair, some other 15 DEs got this Fortune genies, tamed minotaurs pair with creature counts:
721, 485
654, 441
431, 291
3xx, 2xx (I am not searching anymore)
It's quite unlucky to get one high up there in the range, the ones below were generally 3-stared. | | @Sylin, show me proof that the 2stared battle actually happened.It is obvious that admins are forging our battle logs to cover their lies | If all Watchers' Guild Battle were doable 3 Star, the guild would become redundant.
The spark of the guild lies in the fact that you first battle, win or get owned, and then get back to have your vengeance.
And yes, some battles seem impossible, but out of the box strategy and a hint of luck can win you any battle. | The last pair I mentioned were 391 and 264.
The creature counts goes up by either 10% or 50% (within +- 2%, a bit like how you don't get exact percent when reversing calculating hunt creature increase because of rounding).
10% looks like hunt event increase.
I don't know about 50% increase, the numbers were actually 51.74% and 51.54% while the 10% ones has +-0.3% error, so it might be that there's some pairs missing in-between, or something else.
And this is just from one pair from all the possible ones in a single type of WG task, there's a lot of room for study.
@Lawton
No one is putting admin's words up in stones and it certainly did not get any more convincing the longer people referenced it. If anything, the older the content, the more wary we should be for outdated information.
But things said within an announcement is a lot more trustworthy than mere players like us. It's still not absolute.
If you are actually concerned about this, then do something. I couldn't believe I came back to this game last night, found this thread, went to statistics of all players page, and found that one stupid combat in less than half an hour doing a lousy iterative deepening on the number of lords, and the combat log pages while it's 2-3am in the morning (asians are having chinese new year break).
Learn to use that page and work things out.
Your impression of rule 9 + 10 is limited. There are a lot of ways for rule 10 to establish a ceiling and for rule 9 to scale up to it without ever shooting through the roof.
You don't know what ad hominem amounts to when you label many here as a herd, neither do you understand statistics nor computability theory, and I have strong impression that you did not fully read or understand Lord MilesTeg's posts.
I feel extremely sorry for Lady sofiouta and others ); | for Sylin:
your comment here about the statistics page intrigued me as to whether I was missing something.
I thought for a moment there was a page that could access combat logs in a database format or someuch (though reflecting on it, obviously if that were the case it would no thave taken you half an hour!)
Presumably you went here http://www.guildofheroes.ru/players.php?levelst=15&levelfin=15&male=1&female=1&sort=21&napr=1&cl an_id=-1&frak6=1&submit=search...&nick=
And searched for level 15 Dark elves and sorted by watchers guild so as to start with those with the most relevant battles - and then browsed combat logs.
That I have tried before myself to mostly boredom and lack of reward. Is there anything else you did, I am ever one to want to learn! | You aren't missing anything. I meant it to be more like Learn to use that page sensibly, cut down the search space, etc.
In this case, look for the last hunt event achievement because it filters out recently active lords + gives you those that at least know how to perform well in the mixed hunt WG task we are looking for.
This also works for other WG task + previous event achievement pairs.
Out of the top 10 from that list you gave, 5 had that achievement, APAHAP was one of them.
Also use the coloured combat log script. | Nice job! But this still won't kill Lawton's conspiracy theory
Well, the herd has shown him that hes impossible battle is in fact, not impossible. If he wants to continue this senseless debate, he has to prove othervise for a certain battle, such a trivial task indeed.
I really appreciate the occasional forum war, but let it end here.
Lets hope Lawton learned a lesson. |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
1|2|3|4Back to topics list
|
