SE, We need to talk about Leatherworker ...

[QT_Melon]

Nothing wrong with that at all - but bear in mind, again, that you do not get maximum results with minimum effort.

Sorry but sending out a retainer is not "maximum effort"

What is with the strawman logic here? Was there EVER an argument about asking for "Maximum results"? A possibility of having a vendor similar to HW is maximum results now"?

Sure it is. You were criticizing me for being off topic because I said "awash in manes" and the thread is about Leatherworkers, but in fact I wrote (led with even) skins, not manes, and skins are directly relevant to Leatherworkers.

So 2/3 of your reply was off topic which now equals "none of it?" No sorry, try again. You decided to intentionally include those in your reply.

[Silverbane]

(responding to Roth) What is with the strawman logic here? ...

(Responding to me) So 2/3 of your reply was off topic which now equals "none of it?" No sorry, try again. You decided to intentionally include those in your reply.

LOL. You post something 100% off-topic that is nothing but personal attacks on two other posters, and you complain because I included Weaver mats along with Leatherworker mats in a four-word list? And where is this "none of it" from? You put it in quotes, as if I said it, but it's not in the post you are responding to, or in any other post in this thread for that matter.

I'd like to think you know how to have an honest and logical debate with someone, but I don't see any evidence of that in your posts.

[QT_Melon]

LOL. You post something 100% off-topic that is nothing but personal attacks on two other posters, and you complain because I included Weaver mats along with Leatherworker mats in a four-word list? And where is this "none of it" from? You put it in quotes, as if I said it, but it's not in the post you are responding to, or in any other post in this thread for that matter.

I'd like to think you know how to have an honest and logical debate with someone, but I don't see any evidence of that in your posts.

Can you go back and re-read the thread please?

ad Hominem much?

Pointing out logical fallacy is not the same as a personal attack, which is an attack on one's character. You're trying to dismiss something you stated as not part of the post. That's not true. You can't come in this thread and say something like "I got some tiger hides, and the tea in China tastes bad " and not have people pointing out you mentioned the tea in China. "Well my topic is still on topic because I mentioned the hides first and you're questioning me about the tea in China!"

Square did a good job on the dawn serge mats. Players could hunt manes and hairs and make some good money if they had no other way to.

I'd agree if this wouldn't lead to botting, or people with multiple retainers to take the advantage over the player who needs the money. It was bad enough prior zones had bots, like for the fleece and snurble tufts, and other areas as well. The other thing is there's NQ gear that uses the same mats and sells cheaper, which will cause a disinterest in selling the gear if someone, for some reason botches it becoming HQ.

I do remember however, prices adjusting when Aquapolis dropped the felts. Were the yarns dropping in Canals? I had gotten various lumbers and the Cloths for 1 star crafts...but I can't confirm the yarns and surge, since none have dropped when I was doing maps.

[Silverbane]

Can you go back and re-read the thread please?

Oh, I did much better than that. I searched the entire text of the thread for the word "none."
Your supposed quote "none of it" didn't show up, much less as something I posted.
You just made it up.

ad Hominem much?

Pointing out your false statements isn't ad hominem. Go look up the term before you trot it out. Here, let me help:

"a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument -- rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." -- Wikipedia.

Pointing out that your portraying of the phrase "none of it" as a quote (or as something I posted) is dishonest is not an ad hominem, but simply a conclusion easily drawn from the facts.

FYI, arguing (in particular, arguing points of law, science, and technology) is a big part of what I do for a living.

[QT_Melon]

Oh, I did much better than that. I searched the entire text of the thread for the word "none."
Your supposed quote "none of it" didn't show up, much less as something I posted.
You just made it up.

The argument you tried to make was that the mane and hair was irrelevant because you stated skins. When in fact 2 of the 3 items has to do with what I was talking about. You reached the conclusion I was off topic/deceitful by pulling from your very statement. Regardless if I mentioned the quote by whole or not it was in context to what you wrote. Or are you denying that the hair and mane should not be in question despite the fact you said it? Is your statement relevant or not?

FYI, arguing (in particular, arguing points of law, science, and technology) is a big part of what I do for a living.

Nice argument from authority fallacy there.


You cannot bully me, or try some scare tactic when I'm responding to your statements by calling me deceitful or dishonest because it is none of those things. I won't back down when someone is trying those kind of scare tatics and making personal attacks on my character. I will stand up for myself. So you can stop it or get back to the point.

There is something a bit wrong when an overworld mob drop is harder to acquire than a gated node. Whether this can be remedied by an increase of percentage of drops (I wouldn't know how much would be fair I think the devs need to look at the objective on it) or making it a vendor item or Canal drop would greatly be appreciated.

If the intended purpose was to get people out in overworld and harvest by battle classes, people who are in battle classes find this frustrating and everyone will go to the path of least resistance. So people who have been able to afford battle retainers, and extra ones at that are gaining a distinct advantage and this is unbalanced play.

[Silverbane]

The argument you tried to make was that the mane and hair was irrelevant because you stated skins. When in fact 2 of the 3 items has to do with what I was talking about. You reached the conclusion I was off topic/deceitful by pulling from your very statement. Regardless if I mentioned the quote by whole or not it was in context to what you wrote.

So, being dishonest about what other people posted is okay with you, that's your point?
And your interpretation of what I posted is incorrect.

Nice argument from authority fallacy there.

Wrong. I merely pointed out that arguing is what I do for a living. I never stated or implied that that makes my arguments correct.
I was just providing you fair notice that you are clearly out of your league here. So much so that you don't even understand what the terms you are using mean (and therefore may be misunderstanding the terms I use as well). Stop embarrassing yourself: look them up. It's easy on the internet.

... calling me deceitful or dishonest because it is none of those things.

You post things that are not true and then, rather than admit to a mistake, defend your posting of those untrue things.
How can you do that and not be dishonest?

I won't back down when someone is trying those kind of scare tatics and making personal attacks on my character. I will stand up for myself. So you can stop it or get back to the point.

The point is that you have (apparently deliberately) been misrepresenting what I've posted, and when that is pointed out to you, you put on your mule ears and "refuse to back down" -- that is, refuse to admit your mistake. Do you think this gains you cred? Or do you think it makes you look like a petulant six year old?

[Silverbane]

... people with multiple retainers to take the advantage over the player who needs the money ...

Major point: There is no "player who needs the money," just players who want the money. And the game provides plenty if the player is willing to do the work.

Minor point: all characters (above the required level) can have multiple retainers: two each. And every player paying the standard subscription can have multiple characters.
Therefore every player paying the standard subscription can have several retainers, no extra charge.

It can be a pain moving things from character to character though. A big pain sometimes.

[QT_Melon]

Major point: There is no "player who needs the money," just players who want the money. And the game provides plenty if the player is willing to do the work.

You'd be correct one one level, but given the context was in response for battle classes needing money, it would mean that neither argument should have been brought up to begin with. So you nullified the earlier post more than my rebuttal. If we are arguing about how people can make money in the game then both statements have points and counterpoints. Yes you can make money as a battle class if the person to spend more time, but again path of least resistance makes it less of advantage for a battle class that would "need the money". Meaning that if a retainer can do the job better, people will use those instead and the person trying to harvest is going to lose interest due to less reward and find something else to do.

Minor point: all characters (above the required level) can have multiple retainers: two each. And every player paying the standard subscription can have multiple characters.
Therefore every player paying the standard subscription can have several retainers, no extra charge.

Not everyone is paying the standard subscription. This is why gamecards still exist. This game is played internationally. The whole reason its a pain is to prevent more "pay to win" though, if the person logs their alt into the same free company they can use the chest. This is a loophole and I'm quite sure is unintended. There's a reason the devs developed it where it was more difficult to do, they are trying to discourage multiple people logging in on one account, and using alts to funnel the funds easily. That doesn't mean people haven't figured out ways around it.

[Silverbane]

Not everyone is paying the standard subscription.

Gee, that must be why I wrote "every player paying the standard subscription can have multiple characters" instead of writing "every player can have multiple characters."

Looking for reasons to argue with someone just because you made a fool of yourself in earlier responses to them is not a good idea, BTW. BTDT, 25 years ago on USENET. Grew out of it.

[Ksenia]

The whole reason its a pain is to prevent more "pay to win" though, if the person logs their alt into the same free company they can use the chest. This is a loophole and I'm quite sure is unintended. There's a reason the devs developed it where it was more difficult to do, they are trying to discourage multiple people logging in on one account, and using alts to funnel the funds easily. That doesn't mean people haven't figured out ways around it.

Free accounts voided that out as a barrier and I think the reason they don't simply add alts to friends is the same reason you can't interact in dungeons. If I log in to a world on the same data center and try and duplicate a character name it won't let me. It says the name is taken but if I switch data centers it will let me use the same name multiple times. The game doesn't see worlds as distinct, just Data Centers. If they add our alts to friends, it would scan all alts on a data center and add them, not just world alts. That opens up cross world trading, something I think none of us want. Back to the original comment though. You can multi box and have a paid and a free account on to do alt trading if you don't want to FC the transaction. You might even be able to dual box an FC of your own. I don't know what the FC restrictions are on free players.