The problem with your “argument” is twofold. Numerous people have pointed out the flaws in your “factual” statements, and then you cry BULLIES! Secondly just because this isn’t a
doesn’t invalidate the rules of discourse. You make these statements that you CLAIM to be truth… WHERE is your backing for your TRUTH? Where is the supporting documentation? Your sources? Waiting, still waiting for some actual, legitimate SOURCE that you’ve used to provide us with your truths.
I don’t know what his argument even is. He thinks LFR should share a lockout with other raid difficulties because…it somehow helps the community? How does restricting player choice help? He wants players to continue to raid with their guild? Ok, then it clearly shouldn’t share a lockout.
With a separate lockout, then LFR is just another option. It doesn’t interfere or detract from their regular guild raiding. It’s just a supplement. With a shared lockout, now players have to make a choice of one or the other and LFR does interfere with their regular raiding.
What it boils down to is he’s grasping at straws trying to come up with some argument about how this ‘helps the game as a whole’. Which couldn’t be further from the truth. He clearly only cares about his own personal agenda. And suddenly he think he’s a victim because “It’s me against the world!!” There’s a reason why no one agrees with him. He doesn’t make any sense.
People who feel separate lockout LFR would be mandatory and a guy with over 40,000 cheevos agree with him. I want a separate lockout just to see who emerges as the sweatiest of the sweats.
I mean, if lfr is separate lockouts (and follows cata lfr rules), the first few weeks gdkp groups could easily sell lfr carries for gold, garenteeing loot drop items for hundreds of thosands of gold. (Bring one of each teir peice class and trinket buyers).
That is called a ticket run. GDKPs and ticket runs are not the same.
In summary, GDKP runs involve bidding on items with gold and sharing the proceeds among all participants,(With certain exceptions such as naked buyers, fined players, hard carries. However, these rules are predetermined before the raid starts.) While ticket sale runs involve pre-paying for guaranteed loot slots without a bidding process.
The shared trinkets would likely end up as bids, and the gold cut would go to the “core” group. But there is no lockout for carrying the buyers so each member would be able to get thosands of gold per hour with ease the first few weeks.
Just because a select few of you do not agree does not mean “no one does.”
Thank you for acknowledging that you have not thoroughly read my previous comments and have prematurely concluded that I am wrong. You admitted to not fully understanding what was said and instead chose to agree with others without comprehending the full context. This is your own fault.
Just because a select few disagree with my opinion does not mean that others do not share it. I am actually against adding LFR in the last phase of Cata, but I proposed a compromise for it to share a lockout with normal and heroic modes. I support its reintroduction in MoP, where it serves a useful purpose.
The argument that a separate lockout for LFR makes it “just another option” and doesn’t interfere with regular guild raiding, while a shared lockout forces players to choose and thus interferes, is hypocritical for several reasons:
In summary, the argument is hypocritical because it fails to apply consistent logic and ignores the broader implications of both separate and shared lockouts on player behavior and guild dynamics. Both scenarios create choices and potential interference, and selectively labeling one as non-interfering while condemning the other is inherently contradictory.
Still waiting for that hard data to support any of your claims.
FACT: using numerically ordered bullet points does not relegate your statements to the realm of fact.
No…no one agrees with you because no one agrees with you. This thread is just you arguing against LFR. I’ve never seen a more lopsided topic. I was quite involved in the whole RDF debate and at least there there were a few anti-rdf posters. Here it’s just you.
The rest of your post makes absolutely no sense. So just keep buying your gear in GDKPs and let people play the game how they want.
go read them there up above.
Stating that something is not a fact does not make it false. You claimed that the facts I listed were false, but have yet to prove they are. The burden of proof lies with you to prove them false.
Stating that does not make it true. Others in this post have agreed with me, but you are the one who refuses to read the comments. You actually admitted to this in a previous post.
Again, you deflect, and deliberately ignore the commonly known and established rules of discussion. You have made the same statements time after time, yet you do not provide the SOURCE of this “knowledge”. Without any support your statements are and will always remain just your OPINION. No matter how many times you try to shift the burden of proof, no matter how you deflect the argument, nothing you say carries any validity beyond your own ego.
Your repeated assertion that my statements are false without providing any evidence to support your claim is a classic example of a baseless assertion. You continue to deflect by demanding sources while failing to address the evidence I have already provided. This approach is not only unproductive but also hypocritical.
Ok, I’ll address your ridiculous post.
No, it doesn’t. It’s an option. People can completely ignore LFR. I know you’re incapable of understanding that, but that’s a you problem.
No hypocrisy. It’s a fact. Separate lockout means it’s an option. Shared lockout means it’s a restriction.
This merely demonstrates how you’re incapable of viewing the game from any other perspective than your own. “If LFR is in I’ll feel like I have to do them!!” That is, again, a you problem. The vast majority of players just play how they want.
And here’s the key one. Your use of the word instead is the whole point. With a separate lockout, there is no instead. It’s the shared lockout that creates instead. With a separate lockout players can do whatever they want. Do LFR. Do other raiding. Do both. Do neither. It’s all up to them. It’s just a supplement to their regular raiding. With a shared lockout, now players have to choose one or the other. And some may say, “I’ll just do LFR.” And then raiding guilds start to fall apart because players can’t do both. That is what your shared lockout creates. Exactly what you say you don’t want.
And why do you want this? Well, in your own words you don’t want to feel forced to do LFR. I don’t care. That’s not my problem. That’s not other players’ problem. That’s not Blizzard’s problem. If a few of the 1% of the playerbase can’t control themselves, then oh well. And by the way, even in that context it’s still pretty much just you. I don’t see real hardcore, elite players here demanding a shared lockout. Of course not. Real elites just deal with it. It’s the minority of the minority of entitled players who need the game perfectly crafted specifically for them.
All because you don’t want the ability to have an option, and no one else should either. That’s beyond selfish and horrible for the game.
the argument that LFR is “just an option” and can be ignored fails to address the broader implications of choice and interference on player behavior and guild dynamics. Both separate and shared lockouts create choices and potential interference, and selectively labeling one as non-interfering while condemning the other is inherently contradictory.
The assertion that there is “no hypocrisy” and that a separate lockout is merely an option while a shared lockout is a restriction fails to address the core issue of consistency in your logic. Here’s why:
Choice and Interference : The claim that a separate lockout for LFR (Looking For Raid) is just an option and doesn’t interfere with regular raiding contradicts the idea that players should have to choose between LFR and regular raiding. If having to choose between options is considered interference, then providing an additional option inherently creates a choice and thus interference . Ignoring this fact
the argument that feeling compelled to participate in LFR is solely a personal problem fails to address the broader implications on player behavior and game dynamics. Both separate and shared lockouts create choices and potential interference, and dismissing these concerns as personal issues ignores the diverse perspectives and motivations within the player community.
The assertion that a separate lockout for LFR does not create an “instead” scenario and is merely a supplement to regular raiding fails to address the broader implications on player behavior and guild dynamics. Here’s why:
Hahaha! Yes it is. I can see your logs. Best average performance of 26%!
I doubt that she’s upset. You also haven’t achieved that 7/7. It was given to you in exchange for gold.
That is overall data that includes players who are full bis why dont you go look at the ilvl data and not the overall data?
I did… wow… You’re terrible. Hahahaha!
No, you did not. You examined the overall data, not the ilvl data. My DK, has an ilvl of 369. You are comparing that ilvl to players who have an average ilvl of 391. Naturally, the 22-ilvl difference would result in a significant difference in damage. If you had actually played Cataclysm, you would understand how this item level gap influences the data and parses.
No, I did. You’re not good at your class.
You can actually see that in my achievements. 
I really couldn’t care less how bad he is at the game. Him paying 400k gold to be carried through GDKPs is simply amusing. More importantly it points out his utter hypocrisy, and another reason why his arguments make no sense.