Quasadu

A great place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there.

Which just makes it even easier to dismiss.

Then you did misunderstand me. This is what I am saying:

Rejecting the doubling claim out of hand is justified, because it is based on false premises.

Once again there is nothing in what you just said that contradicts anything I have said.

No it isn't. Read the parts you quoted in red.

No assertion is made that dual builds had no significant impact - only "I have a hard time believing..." that they had a significant impact. That is not assertion, it is doubt.

The second red paragraph contains only rejection of the "doubling" assertion as absurd.

Good question. Why not read it and let us know?

The parts you put it red do not contradict anything I said. The assertion was absurd and valueless. Negating it is not, in any way, equally absurd or valueless. The parts you put in red are only an elaboration on why the assertion is absurd and valueless.

You are needlessly assigning value to an assertion that it doesn't have, just so that you can argue it can't be rejected as the made up baloney that it is. Let me spell this out one last time:

"The demand has doubled with dual builds*" is an assertion based on made up baloney.

"Wow. Uhm... No." is a rejection of that assertion as made up baloney. Because it is.

"You can play the exactly doubled, or you can read that as doubled the total number slots, multiplied the number of slots that were unfilled with enhancements by some large number." is several examples of possible meaning to the assertion which are all, still, made up baloney.

"Then there is the matter of discounting effects on market prices." is you taking the flat out rejection of the made up baloney assertion and trying to turn it into a rejection of the claim that there was ANY effect on the market. Those two claims are not in any way the same thing.


*you left out the italicized part, probably again in an attempt to make the made up baloney assertion something different than what it was

I have not asserted that demand has not increased. I have only denied the validity of the claim that demand has doubled with the advent of dual builds.

When an assertion's validity is called into question, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

The assertion that demand has doubled with the advent of dual build has no basis in fact or logic. Until some evidence to support that claim is brought forward, that claim can be dismissed out of hand. It falls under the heading of "s*** I just made up."

By none of those definitions does the statement about demand having doubled with dual builds seem accurate or demonstrable.

The only post I am referring to is the one by Hydrophidian that quoted the bit about doubling demand with dual builds. That post simply said "no." There is nothing wrong with that "no" because the assertion it negates is an invalid argument.

It is not invalid to reject an invalid assertion. In other words, the simple "No" to which you replied above is, in fact, a perfectly valid reaction to the invalid assertion about demand and dual builds.

The problem with the statement is that it is worded in such a way that is implies that dual builds are the cause of doubled demand. That is almost certainly not true.

Even if demand has doubled since that time (which has not been shown to be true, but for the sake of argument), that does not by itself prove that dual builds are in any way responsible for that increase in demand, and it says absolutely nothing about whether there has been a corresponding increase in supply.

Common sense and logic would seem to indicate that dual builds would have nothing to do with any such doubling in demand, because it's easy enough to find players who don't use dual builds at all. Myself, for instance. I am part of demand, and my demand didn't double because of dual builds, therefore someone else's demand would have to double and then also increase enough to make up for the lack of mine doubling. And that would have to happen for every player whose demand has not increased because of dual builds. And how does that happen? how does a second build cause your demand to more than double?

Furthermore, what does "doubled" demand even mean when one is talking about dual builds? Even if I have two builds on every character, I'm not using the same pieces in both builds. So how has demand doubled if it's not for the same things? Obviously demand has increased, because I want more stuff, but how do you show that it's actually doubled?

So it's a worthless statement, because we don't know if it's even true or if (assuming it were true) it's relevant to anything being discussed in this thread.

If the assertion being made is that dual builds caused a doubling in demand, I say that's very unlikely given my points above.

If the assertion is that demand has doubled since the time dual builds were introduced but not necessarily that they are the cause, then I say "how much has supply increased since then?"

In either case, I say "show me the data." Until then, it's a baseless assertion that is being presented as fact and therefore cannot be used as a building block in one's argument, if one wants that argument to have any validity.

Yo Joe!

That statement only seems to address the "supply" half and ignore the "demand" half.

Tyrant stomped Hamidon. If Hamidon is a real threat, and Tyrant stomped him, then why again isn't Tyrant a real threat?

Yeah I remember two or three years ago he mentioned it (wouldn't specifically say it was FX but hinted heavily) at Baltimore Comic-con and then I never heard anything more about it. I had assumed it wasn't going to happen. Good to see I may have been wrong.

It's new.

That reminds me, check your PM's.







(not really...)

That is not what they said. They said that it was a hypothetical that COULD, MAYBE, SOMEDAY happen. They said it was something they had thought about. They did not say it was on their to-do list.