Nope, you asked if they could improve and then denied that they could improve even though they can, even if they're doing the best they can with the currently available gear, because their gear can at some point improve.
If you grind out some uncapped Eso, you'll be at i200 compared to a full time raider's i210, give or take. That's pretty nearly equal footing. And since even un-upgraded Law is enough to grind Fractal (which would have Eso at this point if they hold to the pattern), it shouldn't be hard to grind up some Eso. Oh, and at the same time you'll be getting the new currency, which (if the pattern holds) will be stronger than i210 and can help alleviate the small remaining gap.
Either the mere potential for abuse is sufficient grounds to not implement something, or it isn't. I'm only asking for consistency. Now, if they want to quantify that potential, that would be another matter. But they seem unwilling to do so.
Arguing against hyporbole is arguing semantics. You realize this, right? Because...
I would take it in context and try to determine if you're being literal. Assuming the context makes it reasonably clear, I'd probably respond to what you most likely meant. Possibly with a sarcastic reference to the hyperbole itself, because sarcasm is fun.
And everyone else is suffering for the minority. Yay.
I guess if I start keeping a journal or something. Because in the average PF party people seem to perform about as well as the average DF party. So accountability would have to come from a tracker of some sort to remember the bad people from prior PFs. But that seems like an aweful lot of work for not a lot of payout, because PF is still random.
I have to assume you mistyped this and mean "Not when others think it's my duty to give them assistance." Or something? Because the response as typed makes no sense. But it's nice to know that you have no feeling of responsibility for the areas you inhabit.
It's the state the game is still in. At no point has SE stopped putting DPS checks in even non-endgame content, and at no point has the player base developed competence. You can't pretend that the unbroken chain leading back to beta is irrelevent to the current discussion.
You really think that Ravana is the hardest content in the game? Or is this hyperbole? Because I think I remember your saying something about hyperbole being an ineffective argument tactic...
Some people will listen to numbers. More options good. Less options bad.
Well, so far they're not showing promise at assessing risk/reward, if tells in dungeons are any indication. At this point I'd re-assess if they showed their work.
Or they can at least explain their reasoning. By which I mean their actual risk/reward assessment, not just their conclusion. At least then we can debate the assessment.
Hence numbers seven and 8...This really isn't hard. You take data you have and extrapolate it out to data you don't have to get some idea of what it would look like. This is really, really basic. It's not an exact science, but it's still useful.
At least then we would have a point to start from to try to argue down from, since 75% seems rather unlikely.
Funny thing. I listed 8 as an assumption, but it's actually possible to assess this with at least fair accuracy. Send a link out to the player base asking if they've suffered any harassment they haven't reported. You won't get everyone to answer, but you can, once again, extrapolate out from the responses you get.
That's kinda the problem I'm getting at, here.
And I don't owe it to them to not say their reasoning is bunk. >_>
Honestly, I think 30% is probably the extreme upper bound of reasonable, but at least if they said 75% I'd understand how they came to their conclusion.