Vhailorx said: Fight:(1) calling people who disagree with you numbskulls is probably part of of why people who disagree with you (like me) find your arguments so abrasive.
Nepenthe said: @Vhailorx, FWIW, Fight has said in other threads that he's fine with them adding something like a Vintage Legendary token, as long as the Latest and Classic stay how they are now. He just seems to argue against any suggestion that the older way was in any sense better than vaulting/BH (even when people aren't asking to go back to the older way, just pointing out the new, different downside vaulting created). When I'd first suggested the "older heroes in classics" idea I think he was one of the first ones to object to that idea because they didn't want to have 4* dilution in the only token that lets you get classic 5*s. It makes sense, so most of us started asking for a third token type again. You know, accommodating the viewpoint of someone who has different priorities in leveling their rosters. It's a thing.
Vhailorx said: Fight said:. . .you seem to think that taking something I said out of context, using misleading numbers, and ignoring half the discussion to post some lame "gotcha" adds value to the discussion. Disagree all you want, but let's disagree on the realities of what we are discussing so that we can at least have a meaningful discourseI agree competely. I just think that your statement describes what you are doing to me and not the other way around! That probably says something about both of our rhetorical "skills." My bottom line with you is that i struggle to understand why you are so resistant to a store that would let players spend their cp on vaulted characters in some way that is less efficient (in terms of roster progression) than the current 12 in latest and classic LTs, but more efficient than the currently slow process for vaulted 4*s.The only explanation that ever makes sense to me is that you have added 30+ covers to some of your vaulted 4*s since vaulting went live, so the vaulting issue must not seem that significant to you, and you love covering the current 12 fast with little waste. But that would be a very bad justification for your position. It's like a very rich person not caring about potholes because they have a private helicopter. The potholes are still a problem!
I agree competely. I just think that your statement describes what you are doing to me and not the other way around! That probably says something about both of our rhetorical "skills."
My bottom line with you is that i struggle to understand why you are so resistant to a store that would let players spend their cp on vaulted characters in some way that is less efficient (in terms of roster progression) than the current 12 in latest and classic LTs, but more efficient than the currently slow process for vaulted 4*s.
The only explanation that ever makes sense to me is that you have added 30+ covers to some of your vaulted 4*s since vaulting went live, so the vaulting issue must not seem that significant to you, and you love covering the current 12 fast with little waste. But that would be a very bad justification for your position. It's like a very rich person not caring about potholes because they have a private helicopter. The potholes are still a problem!
MissChinch said: huh? we're not really selling the idea that vaulting promotes diversity, right? things havent gotten that bad in this thread have they?