OK, not sure where you got 145, because I am sure I definitely salvaged a whole stack (250) and got c. 270 dust, then I did a few more with a standard kit and got a low yield (1.2x, but not large enough sample size). I stopped at that point and didn’t do the rest of the 2500, but I did do another stack (250) now and got a normal result. Not sure what is going on, but problem is fixed.
Experience also looks normal again, almost 26K
Thanks for caring
lol
and yet you let an entire thread march on using the 2500 number. That’s pretty much intentionally misleading
why would I lie?
Who knows? Not every lie is malicious. Sometimes its just overstatement
OK, not sure where you got 145, because I am sure I definitely salvaged a whole stack (250) and got c. 270 dust, then I did a few more with a standard kit and got a low yield (1.2x, but not large enough sample size). I stopped at that point and didn’t do the rest of the 2500, but I did do another stack (250) now and got a normal result. Not sure what is going on, but problem is fixed.
Experience also looks normal again, almost 26K
Thanks for caring
He got it from checking the logs. He’s got that kind of power.
Nothing was fixed. The chances weren’t altered at all. You just had a run of bad luck. Someone else could have gotten a run of good luck and gotten a higher average of dust to ecto salvaged.
You can flip a fair coin 1 million times and it is entirely possible, though astronomically unlikely, to get tails all 1 million times.
It’s because each flip is independent of each other. What you got last time does not affect what you get the next time. It doesn’t care that you’re batting a low average on dust. It’s not going to increase the chances so that you arrive at the normal average.
It’s not a deck of cards that you draw a card out of each time and don’t replace the one you just drew.
The probability of getting dust from ecto when you did the most recent stack was the EXACT same probability that caused you to post them. So nothing was fixed, because nothing was broken.
If bad luck can be defined as getting caught in a lie.
I’m talking about his reality here. The reality was he had a bad run of luck. I already commented on the lying (not outright lying, just a lie of omission).
Obviously OP salvaged a pile of 145 thinking it was an entire stack. To be fair, if I’d just got 279 dust from a stack of ecto having just bought ten stacks I’d be worried too.
So even assuming 2500 were salvaged, that’s 0.29% of the total for this week….yeh, statistics ftw
Yeah, but still, people aren’t statistics. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for someone to purchase a large amount of Ectos for a single player, break them down, and be upset with what they perceive as a personally bad result? Perhaps it would be better to level off the curves a bit, so that nobody would be reporting “statistically possible” but “undesirably low” results.
TLDR; reporting that “the distribution of something across the entire game’s population is within the intended values” does not mean the same thing as “it’s not actually a problem.”
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
Oh our prophet John Smith! Since you’re answering questions about Ecto salvage, would you please look at my research and tell if something is wrong? Mystic/Master’s Salvage Kit, for context.
The chance of salvaging 3 ectos from gear being bigger than the chance to salvage 2 ectos is killing me.
So even assuming 2500 were salvaged, that’s 0.29% of the total for this week….yeh, statistics ftw
Yeah, but still, people aren’t statistics. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for someone to purchase a large amount of Ectos for a single player, break them down, and be upset with what they perceive as a personally bad result? Perhaps it would be better to level off the curves a bit, so that nobody would be reporting “statistically possible” but “undesirably low” results.
TLDR; reporting that “the distribution of something across the entire game’s population is within the intended values” does not mean the same thing as “it’s not actually a problem.”
It does mean that it’s not actually a problem. John Smith’s job is to look after the economy of the game. Not the individual player’s rate of acquisition of certain items.
And it’s also a sample size problem.
Most people don’t salvage enough ecto in a short amount of time to determine with a high level of confidence that the numbers are off. John Smith himself said that 2500 ectos salvaged is not enough to prove (or disprove) that the numbers are off. It was enough to get him to look at the data where he can get access to a sample size large enough to get a very high confidence level on if the numbers are fine or not.
It does mean that it’s not actually a problem. John Smith’s job is to look after the economy of the game. Not the individual player’s rate of acquisition of certain items.
It’s possible that it might not be John Smith’s problem if he’s only responsible for the macro economy, but it is someone’s problem if it leads to a general sense of unfairness within the community, that they don’t believe they are getting the returns they expect.
Ultimately the economy serves the players, not the other way around. If the economy is working “perfectly” from an economic perspective and yet the players are unhappy with it, then that is more of an overall failure than if it is a spectacular mess but the players like it that way.
Most people don’t salvage enough ecto in a short amount of time to determine with a high level of confidence that the numbers are off. John Smith himself said that 2500 ectos salvaged is not enough to prove (or disprove) that the numbers are off. It was enough to get him to look at the data where he can get access to a sample size large enough to get a very high confidence level on if the numbers are fine or not.
And my point is that while that may be perfectly true from a macro perspective, it doesn’t make the player who salvaged a couple hundred Ectos and got less than he expected any happier. It would be better for the system to level out the curves, and make it so that wherever the “average” is intended to be, way more people get slightly more or less than that average than get way more or way less, where almost all results fall well closer to the middle than random chance would offer.
“If you spent as much time working on [some task] as
you spend complaining about it on the forums, you’d be
done by now.”
Oh our prophet John Smith! Since you’re answering questions about Ecto salvage, would you please look at my research and tell if something is wrong? Mystic/Master’s Salvage Kit, for context.
The chance of salvaging 3 ectos from gear being bigger than the chance to salvage 2 ectos is killing me.
Close enough for 1 sigma if 2 and 3 odds are the same. But my data also shows a bit more 3s than 2s but overall they are similar enough.
I remember when they nerfed the ecto droprate from salvaging rares. I remember it as ‘’on the 20th’’ but I can’t remember how many months ago. I used to ALWAYS get 2-3 ectos before that. Then I salvaged 25 rares and got 0 ectos. I’ve been selling rares ever since. Never salvage.
I think OP thought that he salvaged a full stack, but in reality it was only 170 ectos as it was not a full stack. Then he calculated the drop rate as it it was a full stack. Simple human mistake.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
Note to self: Don’t trust numbers from OP again.
Don’t trust numbers of anyone postet on the internet, and don’t trust anything
at all that is posted in MMO forums.
Btw.: This great post from John reminds me again that i want to get the BLTC forums back
EVERY MMO is awesome until it is released then its unfinished. A month after release it just sucks.
Best MMOs are the ones that never make it. Therefore Stargate Online wins.
Independently of the figures the OP was giving, there is one misconception in the mind of a lot of people.
Random does NOT mean evenly distributed. And it does NOT mean “fair”, as that is a human concept. It simply means “the outcome of one action is not influenced by the outcome of a previous action, but random”. And a random CHANCE simply means “and then a filter is added to the outcome of the action that only lets a specific range of possible values pass through.” So a random chance of 5% means: if the random generator generates discrete random values in a range of 1 to 100, only 5 of these values will be considered a success.
That’s it. To see an even distribution, the amount of samples has to be extremely big and while it is easy to do this on a programmatic base, it’s hard to do if you have to do it manually.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
He might have more than one account. Like me. Just imagine a world, where people do different stuff on different accounts.
Madness, I say.
I have zero salvaged ectos on this one, so how many ectos did I salvage on my other account(s) in the last 24 hours?
OP wrote to defend himself but that’s not one of the points he raised in his own defense. I’m pretty sure OP would know if he had a second account and he would have brought that point up if it were relevant. And he did admit to salvaging way less than 2500 (saying he was sure it was a full stack that he salvaged).
Don’t forget we had an influx of cheap ecto’s from mesmers combining EoLs due to new dailies.
Uhm are you saying that essences of luck affect the ectoplasm market? Because artificers can’t make ectoplasm out of EoLs. I would posit that ectoplasm consumption goes into crafting or dust-salvaging rather than luck.
oh man if artificers could generate ecto out of essences of luck
Independently of the figures the OP was giving, there is one misconception in the mind of a lot of people.
Random does NOT mean evenly distributed. And it does NOT mean “fair”, as that is a human concept. It simply means “the outcome of one action is not influenced by the outcome of a previous action, but random”. And a random CHANCE simply means “and then a filter is added to the outcome of the action that only lets a specific range of possible values pass through.” So a random chance of 5% means: if the random generator generates discrete random values in a range of 1 to 100, only 5 of these values will be considered a success.
That’s it. To see an even distribution, the amount of samples has to be extremely big and while it is easy to do this on a programmatic base, it’s hard to do if you have to do it manually.
This. At least for independent probability, which ecto salvaging is.
Random isn’t fair with how many an individual person gets in a short amount of time with a small amount of tries. Random is fair ONLY in the chances of getting something. If it was fair, bluffing wouldn’t be as risky as it is for the bluffer in poker. Because everyone would know that everyone has a good hand.
And all the drop rates in the game and the salvage rates are determined by what is best for the economy as a whole.
I’m going to lean towards User Error on this one. Just like any game, if things don’t go your way; then there must be something wrong with the game. Making a mistake yourself? Not even a variable.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
Well the OP came off as either complaining just to complain or trying to manipulate the market. That’s also the consensus in the reddit thread regarding this.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
Because the truth hurts?
OP is a forum poster and if he says something false, anyone with the truth can correct him. (And knowing that public embarrassment is possible, will keep people honest).
I remember when they nerfed the ecto droprate from salvaging rares. I remember it as ‘’on the 20th’’ but I can’t remember how many months ago. I used to ALWAYS get 2-3 ectos before that. Then I salvaged 25 rares and got 0 ectos. I’ve been selling rares ever since. Never salvage.
I salvage for the leather/metal/cloth and any Ecto is a bonus.
Because chucking them into the Mystic Toilet is an exercise in woe.
Seeking assistants for the Asuran Catapult Project. Applicants will be tested for aerodynamics.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
They also used to do this in a reddit thread. People would say they did nothing wrong and were then proven that they were incorrect.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
John Smith is widely regarded as one of (if not THE) best red posters, specifically because of his snark. It is incredibly refreshing to see people who work for a big company lay down the occasional verbal spanking.
It’s not like this guy was complaining and being told he to take it or leave it, his OP was outright fictional!
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
The truthful information that was required in the situation began and ended at “The salvage rate is unchanged and normal, here’s the data that supports that.”
What the player actually did or did not do was unnecessary and doesn’t help prove any points.
I’d have to agree that it’s unprofessional. And brings other policies into question. I mean, we’re not allowed to be told in confidence that someone got punished for directly affecting us that we may have reported, but it’s okay to publicly embarrass a player that isn’t affecting any players at all?
The truthful information that was required in the situation began and ended at “The salvage rate is unchanged and normal, here’s the data that supports that.”
What the player actually did or did not do was unnecessary and doesn’t help prove any points.
I’d have to agree that it’s unprofessional. And brings other policies into question. I mean, we’re not allowed to be told in confidence that someone got punished for directly affecting us that we may have reported, but it’s okay to publicly embarrass a player that isn’t affecting any players at all?
Not unprofessional. When someone presents false data in an attempt (intentional or not) to make your business look bad, point out that the data is false is completely professional. There is no code of decorum that suggests that you have to sit there and nod your head whenever false data is publicly presented about you.
I’d have to agree that it’s unprofessional. And brings other policies into question. I mean, we’re not allowed to be told in confidence that someone got punished for directly affecting us that we may have reported, but it’s okay to publicly embarrass a player that isn’t affecting any players at all?
I think is someone makes an issue public, they need to accept it when the resolution is made public, and any and all relevant facts are made public. If someone starts a shouting match in public with their boyfriend/girlfriend/pet dog then it should be totally okay if the other party proceeds to verbally depants them and give them a wedgie.
If you want to make a spectacle and a scene, you get no right to complain when someone turns it around on you.
Seeking assistants for the Asuran Catapult Project. Applicants will be tested for aerodynamics.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
The truthful information that was required in the situation began and ended at “The salvage rate is unchanged and normal, here’s the data that supports that.”
What the player actually did or did not do was unnecessary and doesn’t help prove any points.
I’d have to agree that it’s unprofessional. And brings other policies into question. I mean, we’re not allowed to be told in confidence that someone got punished for directly affecting us that we may have reported, but it’s okay to publicly embarrass a player that isn’t affecting any players at all?
It’s never embarrassing to hear the truth unless you lied and I don’t see any reason to protect liars.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
They also used to do this in a reddit thread. People would say they did nothing wrong and were then proven that they were incorrect.
This is far different. Those people were breaking the rules and trying to embarrass and malign Anet over their suspensions. Even then, Anet stated why they were suspended because it was relevant to the topic. They did not do it to humiliate or attack them. They did it to clear up the misunderstanding.
As Filiha pointed out, John’s response brought nothing to the topic other than to humilate the OP. John’s first few responses resolved the issue. After that it just turned into a public lynching.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
They also used to do this in a reddit thread. People would say they did nothing wrong and were then proven that they were incorrect.
This is far different. Those people were breaking the rules and trying to embarrass and malign Anet over their suspensions. Even then, Anet stated why they were suspended because it was relevant to the topic. They did not do it to humiliate or attack them. They did it to clear up the misunderstanding.
As Filiha pointed out, John’s response brought nothing to the topic other than to humilate the OP. John’s first few responses resolved the issue. After that it just turned into a public lynching.
Just look at it in a simple matter without regards to the intent of those who chose to lie. All that was done was shed light and revealed the lie. Had they not purposely lied, there would be no embarrassment. You’re getting mixed up with the intent of those who lied when it doesn’t really matter.
Not unprofessional. When someone presents false data in an attempt (intentional or not) to make your business look bad, point out that the data is false is completely professional. There is no code of decorum that suggests that you have to sit there and nod your head whenever false data is publicly presented about you.
Again, the only necessary information required was the results of his test to show that it’s working properly and normally.
Stating what the player did or didn’t do in their game serves literally no purpose other than to humiliate them. It doesn’t help prove that the ecto:dust ratio is unchanged.
That’s the difference.
If the data had been posted that it’s working properly and then the thread locked, the outcome as far as defense of the game goes would have been exactly the same. Instead, it’s just become a “Oh, and here’s the truth, now everybody make fun of the OP.”
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
They also used to do this in a reddit thread. People would say they did nothing wrong and were then proven that they were incorrect.
This is far different. Those people were breaking the rules and trying to embarrass and malign Anet over their suspensions. Even then, Anet stated why they were suspended because it was relevant to the topic. They did not do it to humiliate or attack them. They did it to clear up the misunderstanding.
As Filiha pointed out, John’s response brought nothing to the topic other than to humilate the OP. John’s first few responses resolved the issue. After that it just turned into a public lynching.
Just look at it in a simple matter without regards to the intent of those who chose to lie. All that was done was shed light and revealed the lie. Had they not purposely lied, there would be no embarrassment.
Their bad behavior doesn’t justify the bad behavior of others. Particularly, when one expects a higher standard of professionalism from the staff than from posters. A professionalism that has been fairly consistent, which makes this instance stand out so much.
That one post by John has only brought out only negativity in this thread.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
They also used to do this in a reddit thread. People would say they did nothing wrong and were then proven that they were incorrect.
This is far different. Those people were breaking the rules and trying to embarrass and malign Anet over their suspensions. Even then, Anet stated why they were suspended because it was relevant to the topic. They did not do it to humiliate or attack them. They did it to clear up the misunderstanding.
As Filiha pointed out, John’s response brought nothing to the topic other than to humilate the OP. John’s first few responses resolved the issue. After that it just turned into a public lynching.
It brought to the topic that the OP lied (lie of omission). When people started commenting on 2500 sample size he remained quiet that he had not salvaged all that he bought. Lying yet again.
His next post in the topic never once apologized for the misunderstanding in the first post.
Meaning he meant to omit the fact that he had not salvaged all 2500 ectos.
He lied in order to get ANet to look into the numbers. He wasted John’s time since what he salvaged was no where near high enough to get an investigation started.
He let readers know that the OP will lie to further their own agenda.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
They also used to do this in a reddit thread. People would say they did nothing wrong and were then proven that they were incorrect.
This is far different. Those people were breaking the rules and trying to embarrass and malign Anet over their suspensions. Even then, Anet stated why they were suspended because it was relevant to the topic. They did not do it to humiliate or attack them. They did it to clear up the misunderstanding.
As Filiha pointed out, John’s response brought nothing to the topic other than to humilate the OP. John’s first few responses resolved the issue. After that it just turned into a public lynching.
Just look at it in a simple matter without regards to the intent of those who chose to lie. All that was done was shed light and revealed the lie. Had they not purposely lied, there would be no embarrassment.
Their bad behavior doesn’t justify the bad behavior of others. Particularly, when one expects a higher standard of professionalism from the staff than from posters. A professionalism that has been fairly consistent, which makes this instance stand out so much.
That one post by John has only brought out only negativity in this thread.
Had the OP not lied, there would be no negativity in the first place. They corrected falsified, fabricated information. Correcting it removed any doubt about the system not working correctly. If I had lied that I salvaged 10K ectos but only got dust at a rate of 1.07, I should be corrected even after it was stated that nothing in the salvage rate had changed.
John’s response was completely appropriate. The OP made a claim that the company’s technology was malfunctioning based on the interpretation of some data. The response was that there is no malfunction, because the data being used was incorrect. Providing the real data was important in this case beyond the simple “working as intended” line, because the originally claimed data was so far outside expected values for a working as intended system.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
They also used to do this in a reddit thread. People would say they did nothing wrong and were then proven that they were incorrect.
This is far different. Those people were breaking the rules and trying to embarrass and malign Anet over their suspensions. Even then, Anet stated why they were suspended because it was relevant to the topic. They did not do it to humiliate or attack them. They did it to clear up the misunderstanding.
As Filiha pointed out, John’s response brought nothing to the topic other than to humilate the OP. John’s first few responses resolved the issue. After that it just turned into a public lynching.
The way I see it, YOU and filiha are trying to instigate a public lynching of JS. All he did was correct the misconception that the OP really did salvage 10 stacks of ectos, which a lot of the posts in this thread were predicated on. What JS posted accomplished several things:
There is no deviation of results outside of acceptable tolerances
The OP salvaged far fewer ectos than insinuated, which was likely in an attempt to garner pity and support for their argument
The OP gained an above average number of dust out of the fewer ectos salvaged, which means the OP 1) outright lied for any number of reasons, 2) didnt think they’d be caught if they fibbed the numbers a bit, or 3) incorrectly assumed the number of ectos they salvaged, all of which was under false pretenses because the entire thread was based on the argument that they gained less than the average.
The fact that you two view it as public humiliation is rather sad. Frankly, if I saw someone post information, that I knew was false, and the entire discussion was based on that information, I’d definitely post saying it was false.
As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.
As amusing as this is (and it is indeed greatly amusing!), I don’t think it’s good business practice to embarass your customers !
I have to agree. John’s response made me feel greatly uncomfortable. It’s rather unprofessional because it erodes the relationship between the developer and the customer. What are the standards for when Anet should and should not humiliate players? My preference would be never.
He corrected a lie. It’s better to have truthful information out there rather than fabricated information created to serve someone’s ulterior motive(s). It would not have been embarrassing to the OP had he simply not made it up or make up another lie after it was pointed out how many salvage he had actually done.
They also used to do this in a reddit thread. People would say they did nothing wrong and were then proven that they were incorrect.
This is far different. Those people were breaking the rules and trying to embarrass and malign Anet over their suspensions. Even then, Anet stated why they were suspended because it was relevant to the topic. They did not do it to humiliate or attack them. They did it to clear up the misunderstanding.
As Filiha pointed out, John’s response brought nothing to the topic other than to humilate the OP. John’s first few responses resolved the issue. After that it just turned into a public lynching.
It brought to the topic that the OP lied (lie of omission). When people started commenting on 2500 sample size he remained quiet that he had not salvaged all that he bought. Lying yet again.
His next post in the topic never once apologized for the misunderstanding in the first post.
Meaning he meant to omit the fact that he had not salvaged all 2500 ectos.
He lied in order to get ANet to look into the numbers. He wasted John’s time since what he salvaged was no where near high enough to get an investigation started.
He let readers know that the OP will lie to further their own agenda.
^
Letting people know that it wasn’t 2500 ectos salvaged stopped further speculation and math about why OP got the numbers he did. It was relevant to the thread as there were numerous posts about the numbers he claimed he got and whether that was likely or probable.
