âcriticismâ posts flaws where something can be improved. What people claim as âcriticismâ is often just complaints, and they donât care that thereâs a difference. The capacity to complain does not actually indicate a problem, which is part of why it doesnât actually suggest âimprovementsâ.
What I posted demonstrates flaws of your claims that are incongruent with what you want. Since you donât actually care about âtruthâ you arenât reading what is presenting, assume the content, and declare it has to be âwrongâ. If people do not engage with actual communication, then they donât actually know what is âcommonâ let alone âsenseâ that is common with the group.
âcommon senseâ does not exist: it is a series of assumptions people make and fault others if they donât agree with what they didnât actually state. Congrats, you shared a particular wiki and then acts like that trumps my pointing out the information you claim to exist does not.
What you express as concerns of the reporting system are issues of abuse that can be exploited by people because they arenât being honest. Part of the issue of players that fixate on particular complaints of the game (and not âimprovementsâ) is they do not make distinctions on the difference between âhonestâ players and âdishonestâ ones. Youâve set up a story to fault with the game, and in maintaining that narrative, you have demonstrated that you, like âaverageâ people do, would rather be dishonest and blame anything else instead.
Posters like yourself, pureblood, and whatever else try to make a bigger stink about the game âfailingâ then it actually the case. It isnât a 'legendary" failure, and itâs hardly going to be a blip in history. The present day is already flooded with things failing, billions of dollars âlostâ over even bigger failures, and few people bat an eye at it. Cool, maybe you actually are passionate about the game, or maybe youâre just fixated on it because you donât know how else to spend your time.
Personally, Iâd suggest a bit more on the reading end as a âmobaâ generally involves a lot of esoteric knowledge, so people that arenât offended by information that doesnât readily agree with them may end up doing better, and thus enjoy, the game more. Unfortunately, the âtypicalâ player does not actually want to be âinformedâ and will be resistant to personal change so long as they have something else to blame instead.
Maybe hots might be a case study at some point, but since it lacks concrete things to actually indicate problems with the game, itâd probably be hard to use it as something to study. Especially since the point of âfailureâ continues to be something that chronic complainers continue to overlook in favor of repeating their sob stories.
The McDonaldâs âhot coffeeâ case makes the rounds because of misinformation, and HotS would make a better fit into that sort of discussion than âgame designâ.
