Open World Boosting

[Shaksa]

Again, not to a measurable or substantial degree, NA brain.

What makes you believe it would not be substantial?

Because you have no credible proof pointing towards it being substantial.

And I'm sure the devs would invalidate the poll should a substantial part of the result be manipulated by votes originating from the same IPs, along with proof of said events - ofcourse.

The burden of proof ultimately is on you for making these claims and not on me to disprove your hearsay.

Am I understanding you correctly? You accept that there is a possibility for bias, but believe the bias is not substantial, because otherwise the devs would have invalidated the poll. Since they haven't invalidated the poll, you take that as evidence that a possible bias is not substantial enough to affect the result?

If that's correct, if the devs had not noticed a substantial amount of duplicate voting, would you agree that the poll could still be substantially skewed, without it being invalidated?

[Xiv96]

What makes you believe it would not be substantial?

Because you have no credible proof pointing towards it being substantial.

And I'm sure the devs would invalidate the poll should a substantial part of the result be manipulated by votes originating from the same IPs, along with proof of said events - ofcourse.

The burden of proof ultimately is on you for making these claims and not on me to disprove your hearsay.

Am I understanding you correctly? You accept that there is a possibility for bias, but believe the bias is not substantial, because otherwise the devs would have invalidated the poll. Since they haven't invalidated the poll, you take that as evidence that a possible bias is not substantial enough to affect the result?

If that's correct, if the devs had not noticed a substantial amount of duplicate voting, would you agree that the poll could still be substantially skewed, without it being invalidated?

Bring any proof other than "i feel like it" or stfu.

[Ciggitybutts]

Because you have no credible proof pointing towards it being substantial.

And I'm sure the devs would invalidate the poll should a substantial part of the result be manipulated by votes originating from the same IPs, along with proof of said events - ofcourse.

The burden of proof ultimately is on you for making these claims and not on me to disprove your hearsay.

Am I understanding you correctly? You accept that there is a possibility for bias, but believe the bias is not substantial, because otherwise the devs would have invalidated the poll. Since they haven't invalidated the poll, you take that as evidence that a possible bias is not substantial enough to affect the result?

If that's correct, if the devs had not noticed a substantial amount of duplicate voting, would you agree that the poll could still be substantially skewed, without it being invalidated?

Bring any proof other than "i feel like it" or stfu.

Kestrel can easily see who votes, idk why you guys think he couldn't. He's called out people making alts in ban appeals. That may be why he didn't remove it?

I wasn't going to post because of the name but should be aight since report abusers would get rekt. We'll see

[Xiv96]

Am I understanding you correctly? You accept that there is a possibility for bias, but believe the bias is not substantial, because otherwise the devs would have invalidated the poll. Since they haven't invalidated the poll, you take that as evidence that a possible bias is not substantial enough to affect the result?

If that's correct, if the devs had not noticed a substantial amount of duplicate voting, would you agree that the poll could still be substantially skewed, without it being invalidated?

Bring any proof other than "i feel like it" or stfu.

Kestrel can easily see who votes, idk why you guys think he couldn't. He's called out people making alts in ban appeals. That may be why he didn't remove it?

That's what I've been saying though

[Ciggitybutts]

Bring any proof other than "i feel like it" or stfu.

Kestrel can easily see who votes, idk why you guys think he couldn't. He's called out people making alts in ban appeals. That may be why he didn't remove it?

That's what I've been saying though

By "you guys" I more meant the ones crying about it, sorry I didn't go through a bunch of pages of bickering. More of a generalization for anyone that it may infer to.

[Joyson]

It is a creative use of gameplay mechanics. If you already have a level 60 on another account, or have a friend that is level 60, thats the prohibitive factor. If this style of gameplay was possible from a fresh new player, then it would be an issue, but this is simply finding a good way to level.

[Sartharax]

I think the spirit of the game is working together and learn the game. Level with adventurers in your LvL bracket. Boosting with high LvL players remove the core of this game. I vote to hardlimit boosting.
10 level higher characters should just not leave any xp at all to lower lvls in dungeons. That whay players will adjust and play within their own level.

I would also add. If you leave it up to the players to vote. Players do not know what they ask for. Boosting was an inbuilt defect from Blizzard.

Look at Retail, that is what you get when you let players descide. Democracy will fail every time because its only a minority who understand the whole picture and thus can implement the best mechanics.

[Xiv96]

I think the spirit of the game is working together and learn the game. Level with adventurers in your LvL bracket. Boosting with high LvL players remove the core of this game. I vote to hardlimit boosting.
10 level higher characters should just not leave any xp at all to lower lvls in dungeons. That whay players will adjust and play within their own level.

I would also add. If you leave it up to the players to vote. Players do not know what they ask for. Boosting was an inbuilt defect from Blizzard.

Look at Retail, that is what you get when you let players descide. Democracy will fail every time because its only a minority who understand the whole picture and thus can implement the best mechanics.

If you cater to the minority because the majority disagrees with you you'll soon find that you won't be in the minority anymore, because the majority went to play elsewhere. HF with that.

[Spicyahi]

I think the spirit of the game is working together and learn the game. Level with adventurers in your LvL bracket. Boosting with high LvL players remove the core of this game. I vote to hardlimit boosting.
10 level higher characters should just not leave any xp at all to lower lvls in dungeons. That whay players will adjust and play within their own level.

I would also add. If you leave it up to the players to vote. Players do not know what they ask for. Boosting was an inbuilt defect from Blizzard.

Look at Retail, that is what you get when you let players descide. Democracy will fail every time because its only a minority who understand the whole picture and thus can implement the best mechanics.

Suppressing gamer words rn

You sound like the blizzard employee who told us we "think we want classic but we really don't"

If you hit level 60 and join an established raiding guild and they take you to MC and help you gear out........ they're boosting you. Please dont try to force us to be like you and certainly dont tell us what we want.

[Aubreykun]

If you cater to the minority because the majority disagrees with you you'll soon find that you won't be in the minority anymore, because the majority went to play elsewhere. HF with that.

Just coming in from the side here to point out that there are people who want that. Like someone's position may not be "I want to force you to play the same way" but "I want you to leave if you don't want to play this way." As in, many people are aware that their opinion may be a minority, and they are fine with a smaller server that directly is supportive of that away from what "the majority" cares about.

I'm not specifically critiquing the content of either position here, just that your statement there seems to only make sense from a perspective where a minority is dependent on a majority.