Reconciliation plan

"MasterSeedy;c-1987162" wrote:
@leef

DarkHelmet1138 wrote to Ultra:

It must be very large (sic) to sleep at night defending bait and switch.

CCyrilS wrote:

Bait and switch is intentional. This was a screw up. Get it right.

DarkHelmet1138 wrote

There's no proof it was a screw up.

You (leef) replied to DarkHelmet:

What you're implying is hilarious, truly hilarious.
You can't honestly think they're sabotaging their own game for what can only be minimal revenue gains ...

You are therefore clearly endorsing the idea of a screw up and rejecting the idea of a bait & switch, because that's the thread to which you're replying. You don't have to personally use the language, it's already there.

As for what I want from you, I don't really care much except that I want to accurately communicate what I'm saying. When you seem to misunderstand, I reply to try to clear up the communication.

The message from me is this:
It's not hilarious to think this was intentional. People do irrational and self-destructive things all the time. Now, it's unlikely that they knew in advance that the consequences would be so negative, but that doesn't mean they didn't engage in their behavior intentionally every step of the way. Some manager delegates to someone b/c the manager is busy. That's not a scroo up. But that lower-level person doesn't have some piece of information, so they make an intentional decision to go forward with things a certain way. That's not a scroo up. Again, that's intentional. This results in people getting shards, and maybe that was a mistake, but maybe it wasn't. But then some people are outraged and CG, trying desperately to spin things, says it was a mistake. But just because a company says something doesn't make it true, and blaming a "bug" for your own bad choices has happened often enough in the computer world. (I did some professional programming years ago - only a little, but enough to see this "blaming the bug" thing in action). The truth is that we don't know if this was intentional all the way through but regretted after the fact or if it was, indeed, a mistake.

Therefore, when you treat DarkHelmet's comment as laughably unfounded, I disagree. Once you understand that it's not actually impossible that we could have arrived her by intentional decisions on CG's part, then my work here is done.

Feel free to have your own opinion on whether we got here through mistake or intention, but at least grant that we on the outside can't know (with currently available evidence) the difference between post-facto regret and true, unintended mistake.

You're right that there's no actual evidence or proof that this was a mistake. I don't think i said that it not making sense from ea/cg's perspective is proof of it not being intentional.
I don't see how that makes implying it wasn't a mistake is any less hilarious though, especially when you're accusing ea/cg of making use of "bait and switch" tactics. I´m under the assumption that there has to be intent to gain something when using the bait and switch tactic, which at that point in the discussion was players gearing zaalbar, carth etc. for an less RNG dependent 2nd run. I still stand by that implying that it was intentional in that context is truly hilarious.
That obviously doesn't rule it being intentional out completely.
As for desperately trying to spin things, it seems to me some players are desperately trying to spin things to make it look plausible that it was in fact intentional, not the other way around. The scenario you came up with also seems far more unlikely than them just screwing up.