I will endeavor to respect EA_Joz's wishes.
"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
Very insufficient. The forums are where the elite people go. Finding ONLY 5 people that won without GG is not evidence that it is easy, not even close.
This part is completely on topic so I will address it fully. I never claimed that 7 starring Padme without Grievous would be easy. I do in fact believe it would be hard. Something can be hard but still be far from unlikely. My contention is that it's a viable option - difficult but far from unlikely to the extreme to which it was characterized.
And it was characterized as not merely unlikely, but unlikely to a very high degree with terms like "perfect RNG" and a "million attempts." First, it's at least 8 total people found in a brief search who were able to pull it off. 6 people replicated the attempt in the initial Reddit post in just a few days. That's more than enough to demonstrate that it's far from unlikely to an extreme - it doesn't take perfect RNG or a million attempts. If it was unlikely to the extent described, one would expect nobody would have been able to replicate the feat in the given timespan, or at most one. In addition, the reworks should significantly improve the likelihood of pulling it off without Grievous.
In my opinion, this would be an accurate description of the Grievous situation: To 7 star Padme, using Grievous is highly recommended. Grievous is the most ideal character for the task and makes the event significantly easier. However, if one is unable to obtain and gear Grievous and the rest of the team in time for the event, it is still possible to construct a viable team for the task.
"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
It's not hypocrisy. AGAIN, my complaint was that you responded to an opinion saying I was wrong. To which I responded I wasn't even talking to you, mind your own business. If you had said "I disagree" I wouldn't have. Go reread.
I did reread it, and I may have missed it but I believe that was someone else who said you were wrong in that instance. I did respond saying I agreed with that person.
"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
I didn't get offended. I told you you were diverting from an intellectual argument to enter a show-off contest. It's like trying to prove you're a better person than someone else because you have more money. It is below the belt.
That's totally not what I meant or was trying to do. My own record is nothing special. I won't elaborate as it may be off topic. If you agree, I'm wiling to take this and other parts to PM's.
"Woodroward;c-1901273" wrote:
"oh there's no difference between I disagree and you're wrong.... There's a huge difference. One terms is used for opinions (disagree), one is used for facts (wrong, incorrect). It's like I said, subtle nuances of words that go right over your head.
That's not what I was saying.
