Is WOE the Cheese to Trap you into using all your Revives and HP’s before Act 8.4 drops?
Bulmkt
Member Posts: 1,644 ★★★★
I have a theory.
Some will say its a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBHU8HDLnLA
Leave a comment and let us all know what you think?
Some will say its a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBHU8HDLnLALeave a comment and let us all know what you think?
17
Comments
Assuming 8.4 comes April and they have final WoW gauntlet of 6 champs (2 path, 2 new + 4 old champs), it would be good bait but then it's for a month so 8.4 seems safe. I don't expect a revive fest.
So 10 days max.
We cool.
(Stop reading after this Kabam)
Unless 8.4 boss is mixture of collector, grand master, gwenmaster, Kang, future Kang and bahmut. 💀
I keep 40 revives handy almost all the time, I used far too many on Dani this week for some reason for two points. Fight was more frustrating than absman but I guess that's because everyone hated absman so I expected to need revives and wasn't disappointed.
Everyone talking up the dani fight made me think it wouldn't be too bad...I was way wrong hahaha.
Oh no, all these are gonna expire before 8.4 drops.
Coincidence?
No matter what you lose because a genuine logical discussion is never possible
If you are referring to the Gauntlet portion of WOE, the two month horizon of it being live would mean that you could plan it out till after 8.4 drops. In which case, you could change your argument to say "Is 8.4 the Cheese to Trap you into using all your Revives and HP’s before WOE gauntlet runs are made?
Those who are prepared don't have anything to fear. The only fight that the public hasn't seen yet is the final fight, otherwise we already have had the opportunity to see all 6 8.4 quests with all 3 bosses on quests 1-5 and all the nodes on all the lanes. I highly doubt that the quest has changed much since that beta.
The idea that this is a valid launch point for a "genuine logical discussion" probably explains why you don't engage in very many genuine logical discussions. But for those that need a primer on when something is not likely to lead to reasonable discussions, the red flags are:
1. Extreme and obviously disprovable exaggeration central to the point being made.
"Anyone who is in the less than 1% of the population that can react fast enough to counter the super tuned AI that recovers faster than the average human reaction time..."
Everyone runs into occasional issues with the AI or the game in general, but the percentage of players who have managed to make it to the end game without spending at all, and were able to navigate those issues without major difficulty, is a lot higher than 1% of the player population. And Winter of Woe in particular hasn't seen higher than normal complaints about the AI. Even the Abs Man fight, the one that generated the most complaints overall, was more about narrow counters than unbeatable AI. I had no problem doing that fight with Sandman, and no one has ever accused me of having super human reflexes or being one of the top skilled players in the game. Top 10%? Maybe. Top 1%? Almost certainly not.
2. Anyone who disagrees with me is either malicious, or company plant.
"will simply take this opportunity to flex and brag or cap on you. Anyone else is just gonna tow the company line..."
If I complain about the content being too difficult, that's normal. If someone else claims the content is not too difficult, that's because they are trying to brag about their skills, or blindly supporting the company. My opinions are valid. Everyone else's is invalid. So of course, they are going to disagree with this or try to defend themselves, but remember, those arguments and defenses are invalid, because nothing they say are actual honest opinions.
3. Semantic strawmen
"...that no content is designed with money in mind."
On the one hand, almost everything in the game is designed taking into account the fact the game has to be monetized to survive. But that's not the same thing as saying what most people are saying, which is that specific pieces of content are not explicitly designed to force players to spend. Most players who play this game don't spend any money. How can you design content explicitly intended to force players to spend money when most of them won't spend money? If most of the players doing Winter of Woe are not spenders, how could Woe possibly be designed to force them to spend?
Forcing players to spend is not the same thing as "designed with money in mind." Of course the devs understand that some players will spend to complete that content. It is those spenders that collectively keep the game alive. But they don't force players to spend. They can't, because most players don't spend. If ever they get into the habit of forcing players to spend, they won't have more revenue, they will have fewer players.
Almost no one says what that quote intends to say. But it is worded in a way that makes the subtle wording distinction difficult to explain, and most people won't even try. That's the mark of someone playing dishonest intellectual games.
So calling it a trap is an excuse to use a tinfoil hat
That's what OP making it sound like. 🤑😅
and no its not a trap