Blizzard hot fixed chests because they were too good.
Then they hot fixed goblins because they were too good.
Then they hot fixed vase drops because they were too good.
Then it was time for ponys to see the mighty hammer, because they were too good.
Last but not least, Siege Breaker got hot-visited by Blizzard, because he was too good.
Blizzard clearly can implement/change number of drops anytime they please, then someone please answer me this, why the hell do we need to wait till 1.0.3 for drop changes in inferno?
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
"It is being worked on."
"It is being addressed."
"They have acknowledged this."
Why didn't they "address", "acknowledge" and "work on" all these things before release? I mean, after I played this game for 20 or 30 hours most of these issues were pretty damned obvious. It begs the question: how did they evade the devs AND the testers?
Its hard to do testing in house when MILLIONS of players data comes in after the fact.
Fun Fact;
Every single Blizzard game has done exactly the same thing, everyone, yup, ALL OF THEM.
Including Diablo 2.
You should not be surprised when this happens, its literally what they are known for doing, there is no reason from them to change this, it has worked out really, REALLY well for them. (every game they have ever made has been progressively more succesful then the previous one)
Its hard to do testing in house when MILLIONS of players data comes in after the fact.
Didn't you read what I wrote? I noticed most or all of these things just playing by myself. And I'm just one person. Why are you talking about millions of players?
It's not an apples to apples comparison though. You are playing the game as an end user playing a "finished product" Testers, meaning internal testers are playing through certain sections looking for specific things. Honestly any form of Beta testing where the general public is utilized to test the game is nothing more than a glorified product demo. It's marketing plain and simple. Out of the thousands(?) of people invited into the Beta how many of those people gave feedback? Lets not even talk about good constructive feedback. Let's set the bar as low as it will go. To many people, I would even dare say most, beta invites are a chance to play a game for free. All of that being said I am sure they had internal testers playing through the whole game, but I am sure it wasn't the same as what you and I experience. Plus the lack of an AH made it hard to determine drop rates in terms of progression and difficulty. Hindsight is always 20/20 though, right?
It's not an apples to apples comparison though. You are playing the game as an end user playing a "finished product" Testers, meaning internal testers are playing through certain sections looking for specific things. Honestly any form of Beta testing where the general public is utilized to test the game is nothing more than a glorified product demo. It's marketing plain and simple. Out of the thousands(?) of people invited into the Beta how many of those people gave feedback? Lets not even talk about good constructive feedback. Let's set the bar as low as it will go. To many people, I would even dare say most, beta invites are a chance to play a game for free. All of that being said I am sure they had internal testers playing through the whole game, but I am sure it wasn't the same as what you and I experience. Plus the lack of an AH made it hard to determine drop rates in terms of progression and difficulty. Hindsight is always 20/20 though, right?
Actually, I think the biggest fumble they made (and easily the biggest source of complaints) is when they had Inferno in house, without the AH, they found it hard, but were able to progress, then, they DOUBLED the difficulty (Health/Damage), but they didnt change the drop rates.
This in and of itself is the cause for the roadblocks in Inferno.
Again, Blizzard is well known for tweaking and modyifing thier games post release, I am amazed at anyone who expected otherwise from them.
I will assume you mean itemization for Inferno. Which wasn't tested. Meaning they didn't know it wasn't working. Because up to Inferno, it is easy to get enough gear to finish Hell. So, to correct you - "itemization for Inferno is pretty awful" - stop trying to attribute flaws as intentional. It's judgemental, conjecture, and a douche move.
ErU -
they hotfixed them because it was cheap, too easy, and put more gear into the system than was intend by the design. When most of the players on Inferno are refreshing quests for the same small dungeon to get a treasure goblin spawn, something is wrong. 2 things, actually, Inferno itemization, and a location that consistantly provides better loot than it should for it's difficulty and effort to access. Not to mention, not all of the above were hotfixes, some of them were done during emergency maintenance windows.
StraightOuttaCompton -
Excellent work on base rumor-mongering and conjecture. Since what you suggest would actually hurt them in the long run (by discouraging most people from using the RMAH, except for selling, unless you had ridiculous amounts of discretionary funds), your sad, baseless implication is rather silly.
maka -
I will go out on a limb and say they had to decide what to ship, and what to fix later. It sucks, but most games suffer from this issue. Every AAA title I have played in the last 5 years has suffered from it to some degree. Some miss features, others that just have glaring bugs, or horrid gameplay. Besides that, however, is many of the issues with the game are *not* obvious "20 to 30 hours" in, because they are almost all related to Inferno difficulty. Which, if you even manage to get that far in 20-30, you deserve to be struck down, for rushing that fast instead of getting decent gear and learning to play first.
What he means by millions of players is anecdotal evidence of issues, useful amounts of actual data, and people playing through Inferno, which was not tested in house at all. If you understand the concept of sample size in regards to research, this is what he means. beyond that, in house testers tend to get tunnel-vision. they test assigned parts of the game or leveling curves, they don't generally get to free-form test. because of that, the things players do in the real world will always have exceptions that testers can't find. huge sample size compared to miniscule.
And as for the dev process working out for them? it simply means that, while the games may ship in a less-than-perfect state, they have historically improved after release to consistantly be some of the best games available. Not saying I like buying their games and then waiting three months to be sure it won't piss me off, but it *has8 worked for them.
AudioCG -
Yup, they most certainly are. They have grand plans for every game and the features the want to go in them. Then after years of development, they realize they have to ship, and cut the things that aren't close to ready, and ship the critical game systems, as well as those that may still be broke, but can be fixed "soon". Frankly, it's a shite system on their part, they should keep quiet about features unless they know for a fact they will ship. Better to be pleasantly surprised than let down.
-----------------------
My point in this thread wasn't that they are fixing things, or defending them - it was that constantly making threads about things they have stated they are fixing is pointless. They wont fix it any faster, it won't cure cancer, it won't teach Nicholas Cage how to act. It is not constructive, as they have already taken the criticism and are updating the game based on it - besides the fact that no *constructive* criticism has been provided in this thread, just bitching and conspiracy theories and crying.
It's not an apples to apples comparison though. You are playing the game as an end user playing a "finished product" Testers, meaning internal testers are playing through certain sections looking for specific things. Honestly any form of Beta testing where the general public is utilized to test the game is nothing more than a glorified product demo. It's marketing plain and simple. Out of the thousands(?) of people invited into the Beta how many of those people gave feedback? Lets not even talk about good constructive feedback. Let's set the bar as low as it will go. To many people, I would even dare say most, beta invites are a chance to play a game for free. All of that being said I am sure they had internal testers playing through the whole game, but I am sure it wasn't the same as what you and I experience. Plus the lack of an AH made it hard to determine drop rates in terms of progression and difficulty. Hindsight is always 20/20 though, right?
How many discovered the exploits and farming spots that were clearly broke, and kept quiet to use them after launch?
Beta testers? Probably not as many as you might thing. Being only locked into the first part of Act I combined with the fact that Blizz was making changes to skills, drops, and everything else on a fairly regular basis does not lend itself to discovering exploits very well. Now internal testers may very well have found things but if they didn't tell shame on them. It is their job after all. Because everyone does everything they are supposed to do at their job all the time....right?
brx - that block of text can be rendered down to the following points (and my thoughts) per item in the linked post, and my thoughts on how useful the item is after:
(1) game was dumbed down. Disagree - the complexity just doesn't come out until Hell/Inferno, and is broke ATM due to Inferno difficutly. opinion, excepting Inferno.
(2) chat is weak. Yup, but it is enough, or could be with tuning. only so much you can do with chat. Invalid point
(3) story is weak/basic. So were the previous games. Opinion, Invalid point.
(4) see (1)
(5) No offline. BTW, tons of botters got banned, and no duping as of yet. They are a business. If you stodd to lose millions of dollars in sales, you would think differently on the subject. Likewise if you had ever lost a job at a game company because your game didn't sell well enough, but enough people to have kept you employed are playing it. Opinion, but sorta failed.
(6) Bad UI. nothing wrong with the UI, it does what it needs to. Opinion.
(7) fewer legendaries. No, fewer legendaries than D2+LOD. More legendaries than D2 vanilla at launch. Invalid point.
(8) fewer gems. No, technicaly 24 differnt types of gems, depending on where you put them. The other crap doesn't apply for an apples-to-apples comparison. Invalid point.
(9) Different affixes. D3 has just as many affixes, some are just item specific. Beyond that, some of them were moved to runes that applied to specific classes. Also, you only chose to list the D3 affixes to make your point, and some of the D2 ones were item specific. Invalid point.
(10) You have to balance different stats. Invalid point.
(11) Less at low levels, more than enough at high levels, to the point they are even nerfing IAS. Invalid point.
(12) Inferno *is* broken. Not cheap, because that implies that did it that way on purpose. Inferno was aded for people that didn't want to mow down creatures for a 4th difficulty, but wanted a challenge. Invalid point.
(13) Main quest guides you through the game. Just like D2. Side quests aren't required, just like D2. Invalid point.
(14) Fixing Inferno drop rates will fix this. That being said, up until then, RMAH isn't required at all, and doesn't need to have any effect on fidning good items. Invalid, excepting Inferno currently. Invalid point, excepting Inferno..
(15) Same answer as 14.
(16) Sort of agree. I liked fighting hordes of monsters, as opposed to fewer strong ones (not including elites/champs of course). Good.
(17) D2 vanilla didn't have these til an expansion, keep it apples-to-apples. Invalid point.
(18) Disagree, but it is most opinion and perception. To me, the monsters felt weak, with later difficulties getting harder, as I expected, and wanted. For inferno, I liked struggling at first, then getting more powerful as i got better gear, and tried different abilities (cleared Act 1 without the recommended health/armor/resist/dps or skills too). The feeling of growing power as you gear and tune your skills is awesome to me, but again, it's all perception. Opinion.
(19) Character permanence has nothing to do with using different skills at different times. If anything, it increases character customization, and increases a characters ability to deal with different circumstances and group dynamics. I am *more* attached to a character I can do many things well with, than a character I am locked into doing only 1 thing well with. Build diversity in Inferno will change with the upcomgin patch and gear. Opinion, excepting Inferno points.
(20) Lol, game has better, more useful customization than D2. D2 had cookie-cutter specs to gear/level with, and once you had the best gear, you could use any spec you liked because they all worked - it wasn't diversity, when the choices were all meaning less. And since none of them affected your ability to kill things, they were all meaningless. Invalid point.
(21) PvP isn't in, and PvP was crap in D2, so why expect anything more in D3. Conjecture, and invalid point.
(22) Agree, but not based on any of the reason stated, excepting the lack of horror atmosphere. Good point, poorly supported.
(23) Sort of agree, but mostly not. There are ten character slots for a reason - 5 softcore, 5 hardcore. Replayability is technically gone (without expansions) when you have leveled each class once, and leveled you best/favorite class through at least Hell, I would say. unique builds can be tried it in the course of an hour maybe, after the 30-40 hours minimum needed to get level 60. All the other points about low customization/itemization are to be fixed, and the dislike of PvP with it not even being in the game is plain retarded. Opinion, but mostly invalid, or just downright bullshit.
So, tallying up, we have (some items were multiple categories, so they don't add up):
Good points - 4 (2 in regards to Inferno specifically)
Invalid points - 17
Opinion - 5
Conjecture - 2 (both regarding PvP, just in different places.
So, as we can see here, that huge diatribe comes down to 4 useful complaints, each of which are being addressed. 17 bullshit points of either crap comparisons or downright incorrect information, 5 points that are pure opinion, and 2 that are complete conjecture, and ridiculous to include in any sort of post expected to be taken seriously.
Before you reference someone elses work to support your stance, make sure the work in questions doesn't make you look like a dumbass.
brx - that block of text can be rendered down to the following points (and my thoughts) per item in the linked post, and my thoughts on how useful the item is after:
(1) game was dumbed down. Disagree - the complexity just doesn't come out until Hell/Inferno, and is broke ATM due to Inferno difficutly. opinion, excepting Inferno.
(2) chat is weak. Yup, but it is enough, or could be with tuning. only so much you can do with chat. Invalid point
(3) story is weak/basic. So were the previous games. Opinion, Invalid point.
(4) see (1)
(5) No offline. BTW, tons of botters got banned, and no duping as of yet. They are a business. If you stodd to lose millions of dollars in sales, you would think differently on the subject. Likewise if you had ever lost a job at a game company because your game didn't sell well enough, but enough people to have kept you employed are playing it. Opinion, but sorta failed.
(6) Bad UI. nothing wrong with the UI, it does what it needs to. Opinion.
(7) fewer legendaries. No, fewer legendaries than D2+LOD. More legendaries than D2 vanilla at launch. Invalid point.
(8) fewer gems. No, technicaly 24 differnt types of gems, depending on where you put them. The other crap doesn't apply for an apples-to-apples comparison. Invalid point.
(9) Different affixes. D3 has just as many affixes, some are just item specific. Beyond that, some of them were moved to runes that applied to specific classes. Also, you only chose to list the D3 affixes to make your point, and some of the D2 ones were item specific. Invalid point.
(10) You have to balance different stats. Invalid point.
(11) Less at low levels, more than enough at high levels, to the point they are even nerfing IAS. Invalid point.
(12) Inferno *is* broken. Not cheap, because that implies that did it that way on purpose. Inferno was aded for people that didn't want to mow down creatures for a 4th difficulty, but wanted a challenge. Invalid point.
(13) Main quest guides you through the game. Just like D2. Side quests aren't required, just like D2. Invalid point.
(14) Fixing Inferno drop rates will fix this. That being said, up until then, RMAH isn't required at all, and doesn't need to have any effect on fidning good items. Invalid, excepting Inferno currently. Invalid point, excepting Inferno..
(15) Same answer as 14.
(16) Sort of agree. I liked fighting hordes of monsters, as opposed to fewer strong ones (not including elites/champs of course). Good.
(17) D2 vanilla didn't have these til an expansion, keep it apples-to-apples. Invalid point.
(18) Disagree, but it is most opinion and perception. To me, the monsters felt weak, with later difficulties getting harder, as I expected, and wanted. For inferno, I liked struggling at first, then getting more powerful as i got better gear, and tried different abilities (cleared Act 1 without the recommended health/armor/resist/dps or skills too). The feeling of growing power as you gear and tune your skills is awesome to me, but again, it's all perception. Opinion.
(19) Character permanence has nothing to do with using different skills at different times. If anything, it increases character customization, and increases a characters ability to deal with different circumstances and group dynamics. I am *more* attached to a character I can do many things well with, than a character I am locked into doing only 1 thing well with. Build diversity in Inferno will change with the upcomgin patch and gear. Opinion, excepting Inferno points.
(20) Lol, game has better, more useful customization than D2. D2 had cookie-cutter specs to gear/level with, and once you had the best gear, you could use any spec you liked because they all worked - it wasn't diversity, when the choices were all meaning less. And since none of them affected your ability to kill things, they were all meaningless. Invalid point.
(21) PvP isn't in, and PvP was crap in D2, so why expect anything more in D3. Conjecture, and invalid point.
(22) Agree, but not based on any of the reason stated, excepting the lack of horror atmosphere. Good point, poorly supported.
(23) Sort of agree, but mostly not. There are ten character slots for a reason - 5 softcore, 5 hardcore. Replayability is technically gone (without expansions) when you have leveled each class once, and leveled you best/favorite class through at least Hell, I would say. unique builds can be tried it in the course of an hour maybe, after the 30-40 hours minimum needed to get level 60. All the other points about low customization/itemization are to be fixed, and the dislike of PvP with it not even being in the game is plain retarded. Opinion, but mostly invalid, or just downright bullshit.
So, tallying up, we have (some items were multiple categories, so they don't add up):
Good points - 4 (2 in regards to Inferno specifically)
Invalid points - 17
Opinion - 5
Conjecture - 2 (both regarding PvP, just in different places.
So, as we can see here, that huge diatribe comes down to 4 useful complaints, each of which are being addressed. 17 bullshit points of either crap comparisons or downright incorrect information, 5 points that are pure opinion, and 2 that are complete conjecture, and ridiculous to include in any sort of post expected to be taken seriously.
Before you reference someone elses work to support your stance, make sure the work in questions doesn't make you look like a dumbass.
So damn good it deserves a quote! And a RED background!
Then they hot fixed goblins because they were too good.
Then they hot fixed vase drops because they were too good.
Then it was time for ponys to see the mighty hammer, because they were too good.
Last but not least, Siege Breaker got hot-visited by Blizzard, because he was too good.
Blizzard clearly can implement/change number of drops anytime they please, then someone please answer me this, why the hell do we need to wait till 1.0.3 for drop changes in inferno?
Its hard to do testing in house when MILLIONS of players data comes in after the fact.
Fun Fact;
Every single Blizzard game has done exactly the same thing, everyone, yup, ALL OF THEM.
Including Diablo 2.
You should not be surprised when this happens, its literally what they are known for doing, there is no reason from them to change this, it has worked out really, REALLY well for them. (every game they have ever made has been progressively more succesful then the previous one)
I like how you completely dodged the simple FACT that every single Blizzard game has followed this methodology...... (very much so including Diablo 2)
Does Diablo 3 have some mis-steps? Sure it does.
Can they be fixed? They sure can.
Actually, I think the biggest fumble they made (and easily the biggest source of complaints) is when they had Inferno in house, without the AH, they found it hard, but were able to progress, then, they DOUBLED the difficulty (Health/Damage), but they didnt change the drop rates.
This in and of itself is the cause for the roadblocks in Inferno.
Again, Blizzard is well known for tweaking and modyifing thier games post release, I am amazed at anyone who expected otherwise from them.
Chelate -
I will assume you mean itemization for Inferno. Which wasn't tested. Meaning they didn't know it wasn't working. Because up to Inferno, it is easy to get enough gear to finish Hell. So, to correct you - "itemization for Inferno is pretty awful" - stop trying to attribute flaws as intentional. It's judgemental, conjecture, and a douche move.
ErU -
they hotfixed them because it was cheap, too easy, and put more gear into the system than was intend by the design. When most of the players on Inferno are refreshing quests for the same small dungeon to get a treasure goblin spawn, something is wrong. 2 things, actually, Inferno itemization, and a location that consistantly provides better loot than it should for it's difficulty and effort to access. Not to mention, not all of the above were hotfixes, some of them were done during emergency maintenance windows.
StraightOuttaCompton -
Excellent work on base rumor-mongering and conjecture. Since what you suggest would actually hurt them in the long run (by discouraging most people from using the RMAH, except for selling, unless you had ridiculous amounts of discretionary funds), your sad, baseless implication is rather silly.
maka -
I will go out on a limb and say they had to decide what to ship, and what to fix later. It sucks, but most games suffer from this issue. Every AAA title I have played in the last 5 years has suffered from it to some degree. Some miss features, others that just have glaring bugs, or horrid gameplay. Besides that, however, is many of the issues with the game are *not* obvious "20 to 30 hours" in, because they are almost all related to Inferno difficulty. Which, if you even manage to get that far in 20-30, you deserve to be struck down, for rushing that fast instead of getting decent gear and learning to play first.
What he means by millions of players is anecdotal evidence of issues, useful amounts of actual data, and people playing through Inferno, which was not tested in house at all. If you understand the concept of sample size in regards to research, this is what he means. beyond that, in house testers tend to get tunnel-vision. they test assigned parts of the game or leveling curves, they don't generally get to free-form test. because of that, the things players do in the real world will always have exceptions that testers can't find. huge sample size compared to miniscule.
And as for the dev process working out for them? it simply means that, while the games may ship in a less-than-perfect state, they have historically improved after release to consistantly be some of the best games available. Not saying I like buying their games and then waiting three months to be sure it won't piss me off, but it *has8 worked for them.
AudioCG -
Yup, they most certainly are. They have grand plans for every game and the features the want to go in them. Then after years of development, they realize they have to ship, and cut the things that aren't close to ready, and ship the critical game systems, as well as those that may still be broke, but can be fixed "soon". Frankly, it's a shite system on their part, they should keep quiet about features unless they know for a fact they will ship. Better to be pleasantly surprised than let down.
-----------------------
My point in this thread wasn't that they are fixing things, or defending them - it was that constantly making threads about things they have stated they are fixing is pointless. They wont fix it any faster, it won't cure cancer, it won't teach Nicholas Cage how to act. It is not constructive, as they have already taken the criticism and are updating the game based on it - besides the fact that no *constructive* criticism has been provided in this thread, just bitching and conspiracy theories and crying.
How many discovered the exploits and farming spots that were clearly broke, and kept quiet to use them after launch?
brx - that block of text can be rendered down to the following points (and my thoughts) per item in the linked post, and my thoughts on how useful the item is after:
(1) game was dumbed down. Disagree - the complexity just doesn't come out until Hell/Inferno, and is broke ATM due to Inferno difficutly. opinion, excepting Inferno.
(2) chat is weak. Yup, but it is enough, or could be with tuning. only so much you can do with chat. Invalid point
(3) story is weak/basic. So were the previous games. Opinion, Invalid point.
(4) see (1)
(5) No offline. BTW, tons of botters got banned, and no duping as of yet. They are a business. If you stodd to lose millions of dollars in sales, you would think differently on the subject. Likewise if you had ever lost a job at a game company because your game didn't sell well enough, but enough people to have kept you employed are playing it. Opinion, but sorta failed.
(6) Bad UI. nothing wrong with the UI, it does what it needs to. Opinion.
(7) fewer legendaries. No, fewer legendaries than D2+LOD. More legendaries than D2 vanilla at launch. Invalid point.
(8) fewer gems. No, technicaly 24 differnt types of gems, depending on where you put them. The other crap doesn't apply for an apples-to-apples comparison. Invalid point.
(9) Different affixes. D3 has just as many affixes, some are just item specific. Beyond that, some of them were moved to runes that applied to specific classes. Also, you only chose to list the D3 affixes to make your point, and some of the D2 ones were item specific. Invalid point.
(10) You have to balance different stats. Invalid point.
(11) Less at low levels, more than enough at high levels, to the point they are even nerfing IAS. Invalid point.
(12) Inferno *is* broken. Not cheap, because that implies that did it that way on purpose. Inferno was aded for people that didn't want to mow down creatures for a 4th difficulty, but wanted a challenge. Invalid point.
(13) Main quest guides you through the game. Just like D2. Side quests aren't required, just like D2. Invalid point.
(14) Fixing Inferno drop rates will fix this. That being said, up until then, RMAH isn't required at all, and doesn't need to have any effect on fidning good items. Invalid, excepting Inferno currently. Invalid point, excepting Inferno..
(15) Same answer as 14.
(16) Sort of agree. I liked fighting hordes of monsters, as opposed to fewer strong ones (not including elites/champs of course). Good.
(17) D2 vanilla didn't have these til an expansion, keep it apples-to-apples. Invalid point.
(18) Disagree, but it is most opinion and perception. To me, the monsters felt weak, with later difficulties getting harder, as I expected, and wanted. For inferno, I liked struggling at first, then getting more powerful as i got better gear, and tried different abilities (cleared Act 1 without the recommended health/armor/resist/dps or skills too). The feeling of growing power as you gear and tune your skills is awesome to me, but again, it's all perception. Opinion.
(19) Character permanence has nothing to do with using different skills at different times. If anything, it increases character customization, and increases a characters ability to deal with different circumstances and group dynamics. I am *more* attached to a character I can do many things well with, than a character I am locked into doing only 1 thing well with. Build diversity in Inferno will change with the upcomgin patch and gear. Opinion, excepting Inferno points.
(20) Lol, game has better, more useful customization than D2. D2 had cookie-cutter specs to gear/level with, and once you had the best gear, you could use any spec you liked because they all worked - it wasn't diversity, when the choices were all meaning less. And since none of them affected your ability to kill things, they were all meaningless. Invalid point.
(21) PvP isn't in, and PvP was crap in D2, so why expect anything more in D3. Conjecture, and invalid point.
(22) Agree, but not based on any of the reason stated, excepting the lack of horror atmosphere. Good point, poorly supported.
(23) Sort of agree, but mostly not. There are ten character slots for a reason - 5 softcore, 5 hardcore. Replayability is technically gone (without expansions) when you have leveled each class once, and leveled you best/favorite class through at least Hell, I would say. unique builds can be tried it in the course of an hour maybe, after the 30-40 hours minimum needed to get level 60. All the other points about low customization/itemization are to be fixed, and the dislike of PvP with it not even being in the game is plain retarded. Opinion, but mostly invalid, or just downright bullshit.
So, tallying up, we have (some items were multiple categories, so they don't add up):
Good points - 4 (2 in regards to Inferno specifically)
Invalid points - 17
Opinion - 5
Conjecture - 2 (both regarding PvP, just in different places.
So, as we can see here, that huge diatribe comes down to 4 useful complaints, each of which are being addressed. 17 bullshit points of either crap comparisons or downright incorrect information, 5 points that are pure opinion, and 2 that are complete conjecture, and ridiculous to include in any sort of post expected to be taken seriously.
Before you reference someone elses work to support your stance, make sure the work in questions doesn't make you look like a dumbass.
So damn good it deserves a quote! And a RED background!