SO is your speculation of it not taking away from budget.
all survey? show me the all. the only one i seen is 36% for ploot.
13 % only if ther was a tradeoff. and how many of the 36% will hae ploot with tradeoff?
in the post wher one poster with trade off. 99% said no. so i guess its alot lower then 36%
I feel like I canāt mention Lawsuits. I hope I donāt get in trouble for this.
I donāt see how it would fracture the player base anymore then our current ability to make āBaal Runā games already does. There are people that do not like to run Baal all day, and only do Meph runs. These players will never see each other. This fracturing of the base has not mattered at all. And I donāt see why this would be any different.
What I believe you are actually concerned about is that most people would want to play the ploot option, and You would not have anybody left for FFA games. And to this I would say that you should not be wanting to hold players hostage to the way you want to play if they would like to play differently.
to quote you āYou have no evidence for thisā " That is your own personal pure speculation."
You made the assertion, it is your burden to provide the evidence. You cannot ask someone to prove a negative.
so that what you say because it fits in what you would like.
so what you say here is they WILL add p-loot if YOU think others is dishonest. wow the entitlement
Sorry i dont follow what is assertion?
What? How did you reach such a conclusion.
This is exactly what I am talking about in regard to dishonest people.
Spend less time misrepresenting what others say, and argue for your own opinion instead.
Thatās correct. If there is evidence that this would take away resources from other things then that needs to be posted. If one makes an assertion they must back it up. If there is no evidence of this then the premise isnāt valid.
To make a claim. If somebody makes a claim they must back it up. It is illogical to ask an opponent of that claim to prove it is not true.
For instance I cannot argue to you that God exists because you cannot prove he doesnāt exist.
yes it will hurt my caseā¦ but my case for what? i dont demand anything here.
As said, āyouā was referring to the anti-PL people, not specifically you, as I havent seen you discuss this topic much.
But plenty of these people are arguing, as in making a case, to say that PL should not be happening.
Which is totally fine. Just get rid of all the lies, strawmen etc. and it would be quite a bit better.
Just didnt know what āassertionā means.
Well, i dont have evidence that it would take away from budget, neither do you have evidence that it wouldnt. So i guess when either of provides evidence we both have it for our arguments. You are just as expected to provide evidence for your claims as me for mine.
āYou have no evidence for this. We donāt know that there would be a budgetary concerns that would take away resources from other things. That is your own personal pure speculation.ā My answer was āSO is your speculation of it not taking away from budget.ā
So based on this, since neither of us know if it would take away from budget or no, its better to stay on the safe side and assume it would. Unless we want to be reckless.
Thats risk management yo.
you talk about you dont want d4 to be like d3 correct?
all this changes people want will make d2 to som mods. d2.7. and in the end d3.
I donāt need to have the evidence that it would not take away from the budget. Again, it is your burden to prove your claim. It is not my responsibility to prove a negative.
Again a blatant lie.
thats agian you oppinion. and we all know . what you say in 100% facts
No D2 graphics with D3 gameplay so much better!
(Iām only kidding.)
Your completely lost hereā¦ Rethink your logic and i dont mean it in a bad way. I give you a more graspable example. I say my neighbour is wearing red socks right now, you say hes wearing black, neither of us has any evidence to back our claims. Im not any more expected to bring evidence that they are red than you are expected to provide evidence they are black.