Came to check for any dev/mod comments on this, stayed to watch the arguments and flame wars.
It would be nice if they would clarify, since the given reason was nonsensical.
Is there even a possible explanation that would be satisfactory? Telling the truth seems like something people want them to do, untill they actually tell the truth. Carrie's tweet for example..
The first TB ran in 12 hour phases and they changed it. Yes because of community backlash. Whether it's because of us or not it still halved the amount of TBs that we can have. I remember it. Sorry you don't. Not looking up anything. I always go by memory. It's why I'm as smart as I am.
If you don't believe it/remember it. look it up, but you are dead wrong when you say it never ran in 12 hour phases.
The number of shards was increased from 1 to 2 when Dark Side Territory battles were launched, because the number of Light Side TBs was effectively cut in half.
Actually it was increased from 1 to 2 to make up for tb's initial plan of 12 hour phases. There was actually many threads asking for it to be increased again to 4 shards when dark side tb came out.
I said i stand corrected. That was a retraction for your information.
And my information is only misordered, not "demonstrably false". You're over reaching in that you're attempting to not only correct but also appear superior.
It is only misordered information not disinformation. The fact that it was increased for dark side tb and not because the frequency was halved is largely irrelevant.
The point is that it was actually asked to be doubled for both of those reasons and if it had kept pace with their original shard acquisition schedule it should have been 4 per mission once dark side tb came out.
So i got which was which backwards, that isn't even close to "blatantly spreading misinformation."
In the future I'd recommend trying to correct without making a show of it. Doing so is a good way to appear petty.
You cannot say you “stand corrected” and also say you were correct. One cannot retract something and then immediately reiterate it and claim that was a valid retraction.
Increasing from 12 hr phases to 24 had nothing to do with the increased shards. Nothing whatsoever. And while players may have asked for 4 shards at some point, there have been zero indications from the devs that random forum posts begging for 4 shards per completion influenced any of their decisions.
There is no order in which either statement you made accurately describes why the devs changed the shards from 1 per player to 2.... And since your original misinformation was only two sentences long, it’s fairly simple to check both “orders” and verify that both are still false.
So instead of trying to cling to the fallacy that you were somehow right, just “stand corrected”, and edit your original post to remove the misinformation. Which is what should have happened the moment you realized you were wrong.
I'm sorry you are having a crisis of understanding here, but I have more than adequately explained where you are wrong.
Being incorrect also covers misordering information so I never retracted my retraction. I never claimed to be right, what I claimed was to not be blatantly spreading misinformation as you have erronously labeled it.
I have more than adequately explained how you have done so.
To edit one's post to change what it says is not a valid act at any time unless it is for something like a misspelling or an addendum. To actually change the content of what is contained in it to the point where it's message has completely changed is akin to lying.
This thread is a record of a conversation, not a reference book.
Your haughty demeanor is completely unjustified and I'll thank you to cease.
I quoted you claiming to have been right, even as you tried to "retract" your statement. You misordered nothing. You were absolutely 100% incorrect and for some reason you are emotionally unable to accept that.
Editing posts is sometimes acceptable. These forums are not only records of conversations, but also are a medium to convey information. Any player who starts reading this thread and sees your post (and then doesn't read far enough to see your fake retraction) might be led to believe your assertion was correct. If you were interested in making sure players were correctly informed, you could add an addendum to the effect of "sorry this is completely false, please disregard."
Also, I recommend that you stop overlaying emotions into other players posts. You listed a "matter of fact" post that proved you wrong as "vehement" and you call mine "haughty." It seems more like you're projecting your own emotions, when we are just interested in helping players increase their understanding (including you).
Since I appreciate wit, to that I shall just say "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
You quoted no post where i claimed i was right because such thing never happened. Someone can be incorrect without blatantly spreading misinformation. Those terms do not have the same meaning. Your saying so was over the top thereby making you incorrect, even though i was also incorrect.
It clearly states that because of feedback from the community they elected to increase to 6-day TB's with 24-hr phases. They mention that they originally wanted 12-hr but, correctly pointed out by the community, it would create undue hardship for international guilds.
In this one they clarify that going forward they will be 24 hours.
So they were NEVER actually 12 hour phases, just planned that way before they were actually released.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
[Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.
To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.
If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.
I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.
To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.
If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.
I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.
The reliability of your last paragraph is completely invalidated by every preceding one.
Actually it was increased from 1 to 2 to make up for tb's initial plan of 12 hour phases. There was actually many threads asking for it to be increased again to 4 shards when dark side tb came out.
The point is that it was actually asked to be doubled for both of those reasons and if it had kept pace with their original shard acquisition schedule it should have been 4 per mission once dark side tb came out.
I don’t understand the second paragraph.
You’re saying the point is something other than what you said it was previously, but someone else has dealt with that issue.
And you’re saying that they should have made it 4 per mission when DS TB came out to keep pace with their original shard acquisition schedule?
What? It was 1 per special clear for 2 TBs per month (2 shards per clear per month). When DS TB launched it stayed at 1 per special clear but now there was 1 of each TB per month (1 shard of ROLO, 1 shard of IPD per clear per month). Only later did they double it for both LS and DS TB, which meant we were effectively back to the same rate as before (2 shards of ROLO, 2 shards of IPD per clear per month).
I’m struggling to see how going to 4 per clear would have “kept pace” with the original shard acquisition schedule.
I never said what the point was in my original post. I only posted the supporting details. I enjoy letting people figure out the point on their own. If you just come right out and say the point the topic is usually over.
The original light side tb had 12 hour phases instead of 24. Doubling the length of the tb halved the amount of time available for TBs so instead of having 2 a week, they could only have 1 a week. The scheduling got all messed up because of that.
If you want to be even more specific, Territory war also decreased the amount of Territory battles we have each month from 4 to 3. Then dark side tb came out and decreased it even further to 1.5 a month.
So since we had the frequency of TB dropped from essentially 8 a month to 1.5 a month 4 shards per mission would be a reasonable number to have kept pace with their original shard acquisition schedule for special mission characters.
Never, not once, has a TB had 12 hour phases. They originally planned that, but released with 24 as a learning tool and left it there when it was clear that 12 hours would lead to people not being involved.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.
To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.
If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.
I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.
The reliability of your last paragraph is completely invalidated by every preceding one.
Not really. If my memory wasn't right most of the time what I mentioned in the previous paragraphs would be talking about an exercise in futility.
To be fair, I have been incorrect in roughly a dozen times on this forum but considering I have over 3000 posts, we're talking about a less than .03% margin of error.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.
To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.
If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.
I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.
The reliability of your last paragraph is completely invalidated by every preceding one.
Not really. If my memory wasn't right most of the time what I mentioned in the previous paragraphs would be talking about an exercise in futility.
To be fair, I have been incorrect in roughly a dozen times on this forum but considering I have over 3000 posts, we're talking about a less than .03% margin of error.
You mean a dozen times that people have both pointed out and proven to your satisfaction.
And how many of those 3000 posts involved statements of your memory of disputed facts?
Actually it was increased from 1 to 2 to make up for tb's initial plan of 12 hour phases. There was actually many threads asking for it to be increased again to 4 shards when dark side tb came out.
The point is that it was actually asked to be doubled for both of those reasons and if it had kept pace with their original shard acquisition schedule it should have been 4 per mission once dark side tb came out.
I don’t understand the second paragraph.
You’re saying the point is something other than what you said it was previously, but someone else has dealt with that issue.
And you’re saying that they should have made it 4 per mission when DS TB came out to keep pace with their original shard acquisition schedule?
What? It was 1 per special clear for 2 TBs per month (2 shards per clear per month). When DS TB launched it stayed at 1 per special clear but now there was 1 of each TB per month (1 shard of ROLO, 1 shard of IPD per clear per month). Only later did they double it for both LS and DS TB, which meant we were effectively back to the same rate as before (2 shards of ROLO, 2 shards of IPD per clear per month).
I’m struggling to see how going to 4 per clear would have “kept pace” with the original shard acquisition schedule.
I never said what the point was in my original post. I only posted the supporting details. I enjoy letting people figure out the point on their own. If you just come right out and say the point the topic is usually over.
The original light side tb had 12 hour phases instead of 24. Doubling the length of the tb halved the amount of time available for TBs so instead of having 2 a week, they could only have 1 a week. The scheduling got all messed up because of that.
If you want to be even more specific, Territory war also decreased the amount of Territory battles we have each month from 4 to 3. Then dark side tb came out and decreased it even further to 1.5 a month.
So since we had the frequency of TB dropped from essentially 8 a month to 1.5 a month 4 shards per mission would be a reasonable number to have kept pace with their original shard acquisition schedule for special mission characters.
Never, not once, has a TB had 12 hour phases. They originally planned that, but released with 24 as a learning tool and left it there when it was clear that 12 hours would lead to people not being involved.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.
To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.
If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.
I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.
The reliability of your last paragraph is completely invalidated by every preceding one.
Not really. If my memory wasn't right most of the time what I mentioned in the previous paragraphs would be talking about an exercise in futility.
To be fair, I have been incorrect in roughly a dozen times on this forum but considering I have over 3000 posts, we're talking about a less than .03% margin of error.
You mean a dozen times that people have both pointed out and proven to your satisfaction.
And how many of those 3000 posts involved statements of your memory of disputed facts?
There was that one thread about kylo having a sith tag that had probably 20 posts from me in dispute. Still a piddling amount out of the whole.
Every dispute I've had continued until resolution, so roughly a dozen times I was wrong, not times I accepted I was wrong.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.
To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.
If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.
I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.
The reliability of your last paragraph is completely invalidated by every preceding one.
Not really. If my memory wasn't right most of the time what I mentioned in the previous paragraphs would be talking about an exercise in futility.
To be fair, I have been incorrect in roughly a dozen times on this forum but considering I have over 3000 posts, we're talking about a less than .03% margin of error.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.
To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.
If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.
I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.
The reliability of your last paragraph is completely invalidated by every preceding one.
Not really. If my memory wasn't right most of the time what I mentioned in the previous paragraphs would be talking about an exercise in futility.
To be fair, I have been incorrect in roughly a dozen times on this forum but considering I have over 3000 posts, we're talking about a less than .03% margin of error.
We're going to need to see your tracked data.
You can access my posts through my profile. Feel free to go over it yourself.
Nah, you're making an unsubstantiated claim. It's therefore meaningless until you provide the data. Absolutely no different than people claiming drop rates have been nerfed. They're wrong until they show proof.
Nah, you're making an unsubstantiated claim. It's therefore meaningless until you provide the data. Absolutely no different than people claiming drop rates have been nerfed. They're wrong until they show proof.
I'm making a statement of what I know. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you. If you don't want to look into it yourself, that's your call. I, however, am not here to teach.
You quoted no post where i claimed i was right because such thing never happened. Someone can be incorrect without blatantly spreading misinformation. Those terms do not have the same meaning. Your saying so was over the top thereby making you incorrect, even though i was also incorrect.
Here you go, I'll quote it again (and bold the relevant part again) to help.
It's not blatantly spread misinformation though as you claim. Everything i stated is true except that I had the complaint and the reason backwards.
You cannot both be wrong and still claim everything was true.
By continuing to claim your statement was true, and not editing your original post to remove the false statement, you are continuing to contribute to the spread of misinformation, which is ameliorated only by the other players here correcting you. Even if the original statement wasn't "blatant", your insistence on the statement being true means you're either doing it blatantly now, or you still don't understand.
Actually it was increased from 1 to 2 to make up for tb's initial plan of 12 hour phases. There was actually many threads asking for it to be increased again to 4 shards when dark side tb came out.
The point is that it was actually asked to be doubled for both of those reasons and if it had kept pace with their original shard acquisition schedule it should have been 4 per mission once dark side tb came out.
I don’t understand the second paragraph.
You’re saying the point is something other than what you said it was previously, but someone else has dealt with that issue.
And you’re saying that they should have made it 4 per mission when DS TB came out to keep pace with their original shard acquisition schedule?
What? It was 1 per special clear for 2 TBs per month (2 shards per clear per month). When DS TB launched it stayed at 1 per special clear but now there was 1 of each TB per month (1 shard of ROLO, 1 shard of IPD per clear per month). Only later did they double it for both LS and DS TB, which meant we were effectively back to the same rate as before (2 shards of ROLO, 2 shards of IPD per clear per month).
I’m struggling to see how going to 4 per clear would have “kept pace” with the original shard acquisition schedule.
I never said what the point was in my original post. I only posted the supporting details. I enjoy letting people figure out the point on their own. If you just come right out and say the point the topic is usually over.
The original light side tb had 12 hour phases instead of 24. Doubling the length of the tb halved the amount of time available for TBs so instead of having 2 a week, they could only have 1 a week. The scheduling got all messed up because of that.
If you want to be even more specific, Territory war also decreased the amount of Territory battles we have each month from 4 to 3. Then dark side tb came out and decreased it even further to 1.5 a month.
So since we had the frequency of TB dropped from essentially 8 a month to 1.5 a month 4 shards per mission would be a reasonable number to have kept pace with their original shard acquisition schedule for special mission characters.
Never, not once, has a TB had 12 hour phases. They originally planned that, but released with 24 as a learning tool and left it there when it was clear that 12 hours would lead to people not being involved.
This has already been covered.
Yeah, about that whole "editing earlier posts with bad information" thing....
You quoted no post where i claimed i was right because such thing never happened. Someone can be incorrect without blatantly spreading misinformation. Those terms do not have the same meaning. Your saying so was over the top thereby making you incorrect, even though i was also incorrect.
Here you go, I'll quote it again (and bold the relevant part again) to help.
It's not blatantly spread misinformation though as you claim. Everything i stated is true except that I had the complaint and the reason backwards.
You cannot both be wrong and still claim everything was true.
By continuing to claim your statement was true, and not editing your original post to remove the false statement, you are continuing to contribute to the spread of misinformation, which is ameliorated only by the other players here correcting you. Even if the original statement wasn't "blatant", your insistence on the statement being true means you're either doing it blatantly now, or you still don't understand.
Getting facts backwards doesn't make it an untruth. An erroneous statement, yes. An error, yes. Incorrect yes. But not untrue, just mistaken.
Insisting it does is your prerogative but that doesn't make you right.
Insisting I do something I have explained I find akin to lying is bad form and why you come across as haughty.
Good chat. Think I'm done trying to taste this seriously.
Funny. Seemed like you weren't talking it serious at all to me.
Of course I was. But you keep trying to claim things that make no sense, so I'm just throwing up my hands and walking away.
They make plenty of sense. People have this weird idea that anyone who says anything needs to provide all of their own research and experience in order for it to be true.
This is merely a symptom of how everyone thinks they have the right to demand whatever they want from complete strangers.
This isn't the results of a scientific study I'm submitting to a board for peer reviewal, this is information I'm aware of that im passing on. If you wish to be more educated on it, do your own research. I'll not waste my time on doing it again for your satisfaction.
Replies
Ha! Nice one!
It would be nice if they would clarify, since the given reason was nonsensical.
Is there even a possible explanation that would be satisfactory? Telling the truth seems like something people want them to do, untill they actually tell the truth. Carrie's tweet for example..
Oh dear @Woodroward
Vendi's post sums it up rather nicely.
They planned 12 hour phases, but it never happened. It launched with 24 hour phases as it has remained ever since.
I do remember it - vividly. I've been our guild's TB officer since it began.
But of course, you're not wrong. You've just misordered your facts.
for reference:
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/128686/update-to-territory-battle-timers-8-25-17#latest
You quoted no post where i claimed i was right because such thing never happened. Someone can be incorrect without blatantly spreading misinformation. Those terms do not have the same meaning. Your saying so was over the top thereby making you incorrect, even though i was also incorrect.
Well then my memory was faulty and I stand corrected. The fact it was never ran but only planned still doesn't change that their initial plans would have had us having 8 tbs a month though.
Where does it say that?
But this is speculation. If you read the dev posts from prior to and subsequent to the first TB, they do not ever mention an intended frequency. I know you don’t need to read them because of your infallible memory, but there we have it!
Not going by memory is a great way to make your memory horrible. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. I improve myself far more by not just looking things up even if it means I'm wrong sometimes.
To rephrase: better to be wrong sometimes than to never actually know anything myself and just become a mouthpiece for search engines.
If I'm wrong I reread so I remember correctly next time, but i never double check facts before i post. That's a sure way to become less intelligent in my opinion.
I also remember a dev commenting about how the deceased timers would lead to the tbs being less frequent. So... not speculation.
The reliability of your last paragraph is completely invalidated by every preceding one.
Never, not once, has a TB had 12 hour phases. They originally planned that, but released with 24 as a learning tool and left it there when it was clear that 12 hours would lead to people not being involved.
Not really. If my memory wasn't right most of the time what I mentioned in the previous paragraphs would be talking about an exercise in futility.
To be fair, I have been incorrect in roughly a dozen times on this forum but considering I have over 3000 posts, we're talking about a less than .03% margin of error.
You mean a dozen times that people have both pointed out and proven to your satisfaction.
And how many of those 3000 posts involved statements of your memory of disputed facts?
This has already been covered.
There was that one thread about kylo having a sith tag that had probably 20 posts from me in dispute. Still a piddling amount out of the whole.
Every dispute I've had continued until resolution, so roughly a dozen times I was wrong, not times I accepted I was wrong.
We're going to need to see your tracked data.
You can access my posts through my profile. Feel free to go over it yourself.
I'm making a statement of what I know. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you. If you don't want to look into it yourself, that's your call. I, however, am not here to teach.
Funny. Seemed like you weren't talking it serious at all to me.
Here you go, I'll quote it again (and bold the relevant part again) to help.
You cannot both be wrong and still claim everything was true.
By continuing to claim your statement was true, and not editing your original post to remove the false statement, you are continuing to contribute to the spread of misinformation, which is ameliorated only by the other players here correcting you. Even if the original statement wasn't "blatant", your insistence on the statement being true means you're either doing it blatantly now, or you still don't understand.
Of course I was. But you keep trying to claim things that make no sense, so I'm just throwing up my hands and walking away.
Yeah, about that whole "editing earlier posts with bad information" thing....
Getting facts backwards doesn't make it an untruth. An erroneous statement, yes. An error, yes. Incorrect yes. But not untrue, just mistaken.
Insisting it does is your prerogative but that doesn't make you right.
Insisting I do something I have explained I find akin to lying is bad form and why you come across as haughty.
It's funny, there's a word for this, but Cyan has already warned me against calling out obvious .... creatures who live under bridges.
They make plenty of sense. People have this weird idea that anyone who says anything needs to provide all of their own research and experience in order for it to be true.
This is merely a symptom of how everyone thinks they have the right to demand whatever they want from complete strangers.
This isn't the results of a scientific study I'm submitting to a board for peer reviewal, this is information I'm aware of that im passing on. If you wish to be more educated on it, do your own research. I'll not waste my time on doing it again for your satisfaction.
Funny that's always been the impression I've gotten from that gentleman.