640 replies to this topic

[ReMarkable91]

XPhiler, on 06 February 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Actually as far as i know, might be wrong the drop rate of ecto between rare and exotic is exactly the same since it actually depends on the salvage kit. that being said there is a difference in that rare can drop a max of 3 ecto and exotic can drop a maximum of 5. Cost to benefit ratio though rare is more profitable.

Actually the senario I thought of was far less insulting that the one you came up with. I thought it was more something along the lines of hearing part of the story something akin to if you craft and salvage the new recipes you can make a ton of money as the ectos you get far outwiegh the cost. I was working under the premise you didnt know what recipe it was and not that you knew what the recipe was but still used the wrong one.

There are a few recipes? just for wintersday there were 275 new recipes added to the game how is that a few?
Anyhow I never said you're lying, its possible what you said is true and you were just unlucky. If thats the case and you truely have a history of crafting and salvaging large amount of items I would have told that to support rather then the fact you used orichalcum instead of mythril.


To be fair if you had to compare the return from an orichalcum wintersday jewel with a regular jewel the return you get even if it doesnt result in a profit it would still be far larger then 2%

lets crunch some numbers:
a typical earing required: an orichalcum hook and an orichalcum setting + 5x exquisite jewels
the 5x exquisite jewels consist of 5x ecto, 5x orichalcum filigree, 5x raw jewel

the snowflake one required orichalcum hook and an orichalcum setting + 1x exquisite jewels
the exquisite jewel required 1 ecto, 1 snowflake an 1 orichalcum filgree

salvaging the real thing gave you back 0 - 5 ecto, some orichalcum and 80% of get a jewel back
salvaging the snowflake one gave you back 0 -5 ecto, some orichalcum and 80% of getting essentailly all the jewels back.

all things being equal the snowflake one was still 300% as profitable as the real deal at least, right?

A snowflake

Maybe I am realy unlucky but in the 100-150 salvages of those ectos + the at least 100 other exotics I salvaged with either black lion and master salvage kits I never even once had 4 or 5 globs out of it. And in the few thousands of rares with master salvage kits the avarage glob ratio was 0.9 glob per salvage. While in the 150 salvages of exotics with master salvage kits the avarage was 1.2.

And yeah the number of new recipes was something like 275. But if you use common sense for 90 %+ of the players it only was 6. Weapon clothing and accesory in rare and exotic form.(oke you have every kind of weapon and every type of clothing but still if you know 1 you know all)

And yeah the recipe in the original state was way cheaper and more profitable(cause the normal ones are big loss makers) then normal recipes. But don't forget the fact that it are event items. If you look at the halloween Amulet (http://www.gw2spidy.com/recipe/6483) it still only cost 3 jewels(+150 Candy) making it 40 % cheaper then original recipes.

And if you look at (http://www.gw2spidy.com/recipe/6816) an other xmas event item. It only costs 8 snowflakes(wich replace t5 mats) in stead of 15. While I wasn't banned this was the cheapest rare to craft because snowflakes were 1,2 S back then.

And as stated before I had strong reasons to believe it was intended (Orichalcum/Glob economy was fcked up since karka update).
Karka update = More supply on Orichalcum cause more ores + More demand on Glob cause ascanded/more legendary hunters
This recipe = More demand on Orichalcum by Jewelcrafers to turn them into Globs. More supply on Globs because they can be transfered from Ori.(Same way t5 mats getting turned into Globs)
Making it a great ballance.
Thereby comes the promise of them to make Legendary and ascanded easyer accesable before xmas patch. Lowering Globs does this pretty good.
It would also explain why the rare recipe makes 75 rares in stead of 80 , I believe they thought it would ballance the recipe preventing people to salvage that recipe in stead of the exotic one. But that is just an theory.
Please tell me it is maniac work to think this and it makes no sense and come with good statements , cause it makes way more sense to me then some fat ass forgetting to change the numer 1 to 3 or 5.

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 06 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

Are you serious? Every statement seems just plain wrong. First one. The samples. Supervising the samples isnt a means to make taking all the samples wrong, its a means to stop those who intend to abuse from the samples. Hence supervisor or not, taking all the samples is wrong. Its isnt written anywhere but it doesnt have to cause it is obvious because people are intelligent enough to recognise the intent behind that sample and intelligent enough to know taking all the samples goes against that intent. Sure an exploit can be obvious to a developer but not to a player. However this wasnt such an exploit where a player might have been confused. As for the person who posted on reddit, ever heard of the word lying? go look it up if not. This exploit gave a return of over 60x the normal rate (and thats being very conservative) How can someone not notice an abnormality with a 6000% increase in reward? its like arguing that at the end of the month you got 60x the normal wage and thought it was normal. its absurd! This is an interesting twist now. So you're saying anet should ban people based on damage (which I dont agree, akin to being caught and not being caught, the amount of damage you did should not factor on if something is wrong or not.) Obviously a bank robbery is still a bank robbery irrespective if you walk away with $10, $100, $1000, or $1m. Also note you dont go to jail because you made $1m profit if you rob $1m, you dont even go to jail cause you did $1m damage to the bank. You go to jail because stealing is wrong and jail time is meant to reform you so you dont do that again. Then you claim that anet shouldnt ban people because it makes it sound like its those people who did the damage (which ironically is also true) What did you try to do with that statement exactly? twist anet actions into a form you can criticism them for ? I mean if you believe they should only ban people for damage how can you then in the next sentence say that banning people for damage done is wrong? If they didnt take action against exploiters the number of exploiters would increase. People will then start feeling there is no point in playing a game that is impossible to compete with exploiters. Thus some players will leave because of that sure. wow, using your same argument you must want major global pollution cause you never said anything about whoever pouting rivers, air etc... Please can we be serious here and not try to play with words to imply people said things they never said based on not saying anything on the subject no less. And btw you're even wrong in that, reread the thread mutliple times I said the exploit was due to an oversight by Anet, Multiple times I said I would be against Anet had they not addressed that bug. But unlike you I am a reasonable person. I dont expect them to fix everything in a day. 300 - 500 bug fixes per month is not a bad rate. To me personally they're trying and trying hard. I am also happy with how the quality of updates has improved. Lost shores was a lot worse then wintersday that was worst then this release. You seem to think that by banning exploiters they're neglecting QA, where as me personally I like to make my conclusions based on the subject at hand (seeing how the quality of the game improves month after month) rather then based on some conspiracy theory (banning exploiters means we dont care about QA)

Yes. I'm dead serious. Unsupervised free samples means that the store no longer owns the samples as soon as one is picked up, meaning that their intent is not applicable. Supervised samples means that the store ceases to own them when they are handed to the customer by the supervisor, meaning that the intent is applicable.

6000% increase in reward is not unusual in games with shitty farming opportunities and preposterous holiday events. Besides that, the player simply trusted ANet to do their job. The job he paid them to do.

The bans are not handed out because of what players did, they are handed out because other, non-exploiting players notices the usage of the exploit. If no one knew about what had happened, the most profitable path of action would be to not ban anyone, as you yourself have already said - but of course, that is impossible, since the damage to the economy is noticed, and thus indirectly the exploit usage. It is that damage that causes ANet to hand out bans.

No, we are not discussing pollution here, we are discussing exploits caused by bugs that you don't want to see removed. Oh, sure, you claim that you want it, but when push comes to shove you are afraid of actually demanding better QA.

XPhiler, on 06 February 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

TheplayerswhowouldhaveexploitedhadtheyknowaboutthemethodwillbethereregardlessifyoubanexploitersornotNothingyoucandoaboutthatBybanningexploitershoweveryoucandeterafewofthemTheywillstillbeingamebutnexttimeiftheycomeacrosstheexploittheymightbeafraidtotakeadvantageofitforfearofbeingbannedSamethingwithalltheexploitersthatprofitedinlimitedwaylikejustusingit50timesinsteadof200+

Not really, no, there will always be people who exploit without considering the consequences. And of course, there will also always be people who think that when ANet says here is an item that have this and that property they actually mean that the item should have said properties.

Gli, on 06 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

And regardless of how many bugs you fix or nip in the bud, the game remains a complex piece of software that's not used to run critical processes, so more bugs will always turn up as the software evolves into new builds and new versions. The only way to make sure you won't have bugs or exploits appear, is to put so much work in the production of the software that it would be impossible to make a profit.

See? Both issues have the same bottom line. Which is why it only makes sense to tackle both problems in a similar, reasonable way, instead of in an unfeasible, pipe-dreamy perfect way.

If you have no exploiters at all in your population, you needn't worry about exploits. If you have no exploits at all in you software, you needn't worry about exploiters. Since both are present, you deal with both. You can't get rid of every exploiter or potential exploiter, but you remove those that you feel you must. You can't make a bugfree game, but you try to fix it as you go along. Both add to the totality of the gaming environment in their own way.

As stated before, repeatedly, no one is asking for zero bugs. We are merely asking that ANet take responsibility for the bugs that they do put out, which would create a profit motive to put out as few bugs as possible.

You can minimize the number of bugs, but you can't minimize the number of potential exploiters unless you ban literally hundreds of thousands of players. Even if you do that, there will still be people who exploit. And yes, there will also be bugs if you minimize those, but improving QA instead of just bannning people to the left and right also bring with it other improvements - such as minimizing the amount of non-exploit bugs.

Don't you want that?

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 07 February 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Yes. I'm dead serious. Unsupervised free samples means that the store no longer owns the samples as soon as one is picked up, meaning that their intent is not applicable. Supervised samples means that the store ceases to own them when they are handed to the customer by the supervisor, meaning that the intent is applicable.

6000% increase in reward is not unusual in games with shitty farming opportunities and preposterous holiday events. Besides that, the player simply trusted ANet to do their job. The job he paid them to do.

The bans are not handed out because of what players did, they are handed out because other, non-exploiting players notices the usage of the exploit. If no one knew about what had happened, the most profitable path of action would be to not ban anyone, as you yourself have already said - but of course, that is impossible, since the damage to the economy is noticed, and thus indirectly the exploit usage. It is that damage that causes ANet to hand out bans.

No, we are not discussing pollution here, we are discussing exploits caused by bugs that you don't want to see removed. Oh, sure, you claim that you want it, but when push comes to shove you are afraid of actually demanding better QA.

Not really, no, there will always be people who exploit without considering the consequences. And of course, there will also always be people who think that when ANet says here is an item that have this and that property they actually mean that the item should have said properties.

As stated before, repeatedly, no one is asking for zero bugs. We are merely asking that ANet take responsibility for the bugs that they do put out, which would create a profit motive to put out as few bugs as possible.

You can minimize the number of bugs, but you can't minimize the number of potential exploiters unless you ban literally hundreds of thousands of players. Even if you do that, there will still be people who exploit. And yes, there will also be bugs if you minimize those, but improving QA instead of just bannning people to the left and right also bring with it other improvements - such as minimizing the amount of non-exploit bugs.

Don't you want that?

Lol, interesting theory. Where exactly is it written that any owner no longer owns something if it isnt supervised? What if the supervisor is distracted and you pick one up from their stash or whatever, should you get arrested for stealing ? Supervisor or no supervisor is not a question of ownership its a question of control and more then that advertisment. The supervisor isnt there to supervise the change of ownership of the free sample. They're there to add a personal touch to the advertisment that free sample is giving. Even control on free sample abuse is probably secondary.

Ohh my did you just give a complement to Anet saying they dont have shitting farming and preposterous holiday events? I am shocked!

I said that if it went unnoticed exploiters should have been left free to exploit? funny cause I actually dont think that. Like I said many times something isnt bad only if you're caught. So yes I believe is some clever people find a way to exploit without anyone noticing other then anet, anet should still take responsability for that exploit, by fixing it and dealing with the exploiters.

Please quote me one instance in which I said I do not want better QA cause I am pretty sure I never said any such thing. What I said is I am happy with the current level of QA which is entirely different. I would love for the game to be perfect, not a single bug not a single exploit. Who wouldnt? well some people who love to trash anet perhaps. I am just realistic. As long as I see them making a good enough effort I am happy and that is what I am seeing.

There will always be bugs in software as well so taking a page from your own book should that mean anet should stop fixing issues because there will always be issues? are you the one now saying you dont want better QA based on the fact you claim exploiters shouldnt be banned simply because there will always be exploiters? Cause from where I stand it seems to me that perfection it is impossible but you should always strive for it and that means even though you will never remove all bugs you should still make every effort to remove bug and while you will never deter every exploiter you should like wise still try to deter every exploiter. Each bug you fix and each exploiter you deter will improve the quality of your game even though it will never make it perfect.

Wrong, you can minimize exploiters by banning a few exploiters. Its pretty logically if something desireable (earning wealth even though illicitly) has no consiquences more people will engage in it then if there were consiquences attached to it. Do you honestly think that if suddenly you had no repercussions from robbing a bank that the number of bank robberies wouldnt increase?

Stop suggesting without at least some small shadow of evidence that there is a link between banning people and quality of QA. Thats just something you and only you came up. Thats no different then saying something along the lines unless arenanet start all wearing white quality will never improve just based on a personal believe that wearing white is a sign of wanting purity so unless they show they strive to be pure their software will never be pure and cleansed of bugs. You keep repeating the same baseless arguement even after being called on it multiple times:

For the last time and i am ignoring further statements like these without some proof backing them

1. what makes you think as is now anet dont have a profit incentive to have fewer bugs? (logic would dictate it does, the higher quality the game, the more people will enjoy it so the more will play which will lead to more gem sales. The higher the quality the game the more people will suggest it to their friends leading to more sales. The more bugs in the game the higher support cost will be. The more bugs in the game, the more the chances of having exploits that as we can see lead to refunds and lost customers) Whats your counter proof to that?

2. what proof do you have that banning a few exploiters will not reduce the number of exploiters at all? Logic would dictate it does. For starters you would have removed those exploiters that got banned from the player base even if thats the only effect you had at all. But Its also logical to expect some players would be afraid to exploit due to the consiquences is there are harsh repercussions.

3. what proof do you have that you cannot improve QA and ban people (lol at left and right) at the same time? I dont know what proof I can put forward to support there is no link between the two. To me it seems like the most basic of common sense.

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 07 February 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Lol, interesting theory. Where exactly is it written that any owner no longer owns something if it isnt supervised? What if the supervisor is distracted and you pick one up from their stash or whatever, should you get arrested for stealing ? Supervisor or no supervisor is not a question of ownership its a question of control and more then that advertisment. The supervisor isnt there to supervise the change of ownership of the free sample. They're there to add a personal touch to the advertisment that free sample is giving. Even control on free sample abuse is probably secondary.

Ohh my did you just give a complement to Anet saying they dont have shitting farming and preposterous holiday events? I am shocked!

I said that if it went unnoticed exploiters should have been left free to exploit? funny cause I actually dont think that. Like I said many times something isnt bad only if you're caught. So yes I believe is some clever people find a way to exploit without anyone noticing other then anet, anet should still take responsability for that exploit, by fixing it and dealing with the exploiters.

Please quote me one instance in which I said I do not want better QA cause I am pretty sure I never said any such thing. What I said is I am happy with the current level of QA which is entirely different. I would love for the game to be perfect, not a single bug not a single exploit. Who wouldnt? well some people who love to trash anet perhaps. I am just realistic. As long as I see them making a good enough effort I am happy and that is what I am seeing.

There will always be bugs in software as well so taking a page from your own book should that mean anet should stop fixing issues because there will always be issues? are you the one now saying you dont want better QA based on the fact you claim exploiters shouldnt be banned simply because there will always be exploiters? Cause from where I stand it seems to me that perfection it is impossible but you should always strive for it and that means even though you will never remove all bugs you should still make every effort to remove bug and while you will never deter every exploiter you should like wise still try to deter every exploiter. Each bug you fix and each exploiter you deter will improve the quality of your game even though it will never make it perfect.

Wrong, you can minimize exploiters by banning a few exploiters. Its pretty logically if something desireable (earning wealth even though illicitly) has no consiquences more people will engage in it then if there were consiquences attached to it. Do you honestly think that if suddenly you had no repercussions from robbing a bank that the number of bank robberies wouldnt increase?

Stop suggesting without at least some small shadow of evidence that there is a link between banning people and quality of QA. Thats just something you and only you came up. Thats no different then saying something along the lines unless arenanet start all wearing white quality will never improve just based on a personal believe that wearing white is a sign of wanting purity so unless they show they strive to be pure their software will never be pure and cleansed of bugs. You keep repeating the same baseless arguement even after being called on it multiple times:

For the last time and i am ignoring further statements like these without some proof backing them

1. what makes you think as is now anet dont have a profit incentive to have fewer bugs? (logic would dictate it does, the higher quality the game, the more people will enjoy it so the more will play which will lead to more gem sales. The higher the quality the game the more people will suggest it to their friends leading to more sales. The more bugs in the game the higher support cost will be. The more bugs in the game, the more the chances of having exploits that as we can see lead to refunds and lost customers) Whats your counter proof to that?

2. what proof do you have that banning a few exploiters will not reduce the number of exploiters at all? Logic would dictate it does. For starters you would have removed those exploiters that got banned from the player base even if thats the only effect you had at all. But Its also logical to expect some players would be afraid to exploit due to the consiquences is there are harsh repercussions.

3. what proof do you have that you cannot improve QA and ban people (lol at left and right) at the same time? I dont know what proof I can put forward to support there is no link between the two. To me it seems like the most basic of common sense.

In the law.

No, I didn't.

No, you didn't say that, nor did I claim that you did.

You never said that you didn't want better QA, you just refuse the only way that ANet would be forced to up their QA.

No, that doesn't mean that ANet should stop fixing issues. Rather the opposite.

Bank robberies and game exploits are rather different, mostly relating to the changing value that the game represents to the player over time.

The arguments are not baseless and have been explained to you at great length by multiple posters.

The quality of the game does not directly decide the amount of players playing it. Example: a lot of people play GW2.

Banning players would reduce the number of players using the next exploit only if the people exploiting this time would also choose to do so the next time, which is unlikely, since it is unlikely that they would know about it, considering that for every exploit that is detected quickly enough, the majority of the playerbase is unaware of it.

Banning people is a direct profit hit; it is only profitable if it improves the reputation of the game. Increasing QA is a direct profit hit. Both at the same time would mean less money in Mike O'Brien's pockets.

[Gli]

raspberry jam, on 07 February 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

As stated before, repeatedly, no one is asking for zero bugs. We are merely asking that ANet take responsibility for the bugs that they do put out, which would create a profit motive to put out as few bugs as possible.

You can minimize the number of bugs, but you can't minimize the number of potential exploiters unless you ban literally hundreds of thousands of players. Even if you do that, there will still be people who exploit. And yes, there will also be bugs if you minimize those, but improving QA instead of just bannning people to the left and right also bring with it other improvements - such as minimizing the amount of non-exploit bugs.

Don't you want that?

You're not 'merely asking' that they take responsibility, you're asking for a specific course of action that's patently ridiculous: waiving the responsibility of players not to take part in exploits. You're only calling this desire of yours "taking responsibility" because it's the only way you can sell this stupid notion: dressing it up in moral outrage. It's quite pathetic actually. It's not up to you to unilaterally decide what "taking responsibility" entails.

They don't need to create ridiculous circumstances to satisfy some asinine point of view, and in taking a two-prong approach to improving the game (fixing bugs and banning exploiters) they already work toward satisfying a profit motive: fix enough bugs and ban reasonably.

Lastly, I could swear this post of yours I'm replying to is a copy/paste of an earlier one. You really don't have anything new to say and I'll save you the bother of repeating your nonsense any longer. This is my final response.

[raspberry jam]

Gli, on 07 February 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

You're not 'merely asking' that they take responsibility, you're asking for a specific course of action that's patently ridiculous: waiving the responsibility of players not to take part in exploits. You're only calling this desire of yours "taking responsibility" because it's the only way you can sell this stupid notion: dressing it up in moral outrage. It's quite pathetic actually. It's not up to you to unilaterally decide what "taking responsibility" entails.

They don't need to create ridiculous circumstances to satisfy some asinine point of view, and in taking a two-prong approach to improving the game (fixing bugs and banning exploiters) they already work toward satisfying a profit motive: fix enough bugs and ban reasonably.

Lastly, I could swear this post of yours I'm replying to is a copy/paste of an earlier one. You really don't have anything new to say and I'll save you the bother of repeating your nonsense any longer. This is my final response.

But their "solution" solves nothing, except the existing bug. They just fix it, and then keep going - the next time an exploit appears they don't need to care, they will just fix it and ban anyone who used the bugged part of the product that they sold.

Imagine this happening in any other industry. A fault on a car makes it go too fast - you might get a speeding ticket, but consider the response from the car manufacturer. Instead of recalling their faulty product, they just come to your home and haul it away, along with anything you happened to have in the trunk, and giving you the cost of the ashtray and the extra leather seats as a "refund".

That is an awful way to do business and it's only possible because people like you who for some odd reason would rather choose to defend a corporation that ultimately doesn't care about you than actually standing up for something that would improve the situation for the entire playerbase.

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 07 February 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

In the law.

No, I didn't.

No, you didn't say that, nor did I claim that you did.

You never said that you didn't want better QA, you just refuse the only way that ANet would be forced to up their QA.

No, that doesn't mean that ANet should stop fixing issues. Rather the opposite.

Bank robberies and game exploits are rather different, mostly relating to the changing value that the game represents to the player over time.

The arguments are not baseless and have been explained to you at great length by multiple posters.

The quality of the game does not directly decide the amount of players playing it. Example: a lot of people play GW2.

Banning players would reduce the number of players using the next exploit only if the people exploiting this time would also choose to do so the next time, which is unlikely, since it is unlikely that they would know about it, considering that for every exploit that is detected quickly enough, the majority of the playerbase is unaware of it.

Banning people is a direct profit hit; it is only profitable if it improves the reputation of the game. Increasing QA is a direct profit hit. Both at the same time would mean less money in Mike O'Brien's pockets.

so essentailly once again you offer no bases to your whole central argument of Anet will not focus on QA as long as they ban players. prefer rather to hide behind the mythical argument of its been explained before.

I will make this easy on you. its the only thing I will keep alive of our whole thread and if like you said multiple people explained how this works feel free to quote which post number I have to read.

Edited by XPhiler, 07 February 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 07 February 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

so essentailly once again you offer no bases to your whole central argument of Anet will not focus on QA as long as they ban players. prefer rather to hide behind the mythical argument of its been explained before.

I will make this easy on you. its the only thing I will keep alive of our whole thread and if like you said multiple people explained how this works feel free to quote which post number I have to read.

But you already read these posts, since you replied to them. What's the point of reading them again? You didn't understand what you were being told the first time.

Also how is it a "mythical argument" if it exists. I mean the argument obviously exist since you referred to it.

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 07 February 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

But you already read these posts, since you replied to them. What's the point of reading them again? You didn't understand what you were being told the first time.

Also how is it a "mythical argument" if it exists. I mean the argument obviously exist since you referred to it.

Like I already explain none of your posts or someone elses explained:

1. Why Arenanet cannot both focus heavily on QA and ban people. The only argument you came up with is because if they dont ban people they have a profit incentive but you never clarified what that even means and why its more effective than the profit incentive that comes with have a solid quality game.

2. you also never backed the claim that the game would be better off with allowing exploiters to exploit freely without fear of consiquences

3. you never explain your claim that banning heavy exploiters doesnt reduce the number of exploiters at all

its mythical cause it just your personal legend that a company has to leave exploiters alone in order to have strong QA. I personally dont see a connection between the two.

[raspberry jam]

XPhiler, on 07 February 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

Like I already explain none of your posts or someone elses explained:

1. Why Arenanet cannot both focus heavily on QA and ban people. The only argument you came up with is because if they dont ban people they have a profit incentive but you never clarified what that even means and why its more effective than the profit incentive that comes with have a solid quality game.

2. you also never backed the claim that the game would be better off with allowing exploiters to exploit freely without fear of consiquences

3. you never explain your claim that banning heavy exploiters doesnt reduce the number of exploiters at all

its mythical cause it just your personal legend that a company has to leave exploiters alone in order to have strong QA. I personally dont see a connection between the two.

1. I did explain that, in a post that you replied to. The two direct profit hits would be too much.

2. I explained that repeatedly. Having a population willing to exploit means that you are more prone to checking what you release.

3. I never claimed that, I just said - accurately - that the response to the next possible exploit would not change. You might not understand why because you do not understand statistics.

Regardless of the truth value of the argument, it is definitely there. Do you mean that the argument is about a myth?

[Chalky]

When a thread gets to a point when there's more posting about how other people are posting than actual discussion of the topic, it's safe to say we probably squeezed out the last drop of content that anyone's going to want to read a long time ago.

Let me relieve you of the burden of having to spin your wheels any longer.

If someone wants to restart this topic, they can feel free to.  It's a perfectly valid discussion and I'm only closing this because it's getting pretty bogged down now.

Also, for those of you participating, please ensure that your posts contribute to the discussion.  Nobody wants to read a post that simply says that you've already explained something if you refuse to elaborate or explore the other person's opinion.  Don't post things that nobody wants to read.