Why are you even assuming that only the ones that spoke openly against the chain system should count as the only ones that "spoke unfavorably" of it?
Two reasons ...
1) As i stated earlier, people tend to conclusions that are in aligment with their own ideas.
2) Since those people didnt express their opinion ... and i, on the contrary to some other people, dislike puting my words to other people mouth.
Most of the "neutral" users had plenty of criticism about the system as well, most of the "mild positions" amounted to "Yeah, it's BAD, but maybe it would be better IF".
Again that word "most" ... you like those, dont you?
Lets agree that "some" of them indeed were ...
And some of them were amounted to "it could be better, but curent state is acceptable" ... i know, since i
AM one of them. :P
And until you dont know exactly wich is wich, you cant include them to any group, since you are deciding for them ... in other words you distorts the results.
And with what face are you even spitting hair about my approximation being inaccurate when yours amounted to "It's probably just 20 users"?
Smug face, definietly smug face.
Since thats how i usualy look.
:P
Anyway since my point was that there was "not many people" ... wich i expressed with my guess of 20 ...
And yours was "OVERWHELMING majority of users" ... wich you expressed with your guess of 200 ...
And (this is the important part, focus!) ... my argument this whole time was that 200 users is NOT even in your wildest dreams close to something you should call regular "majority" (that is, not at all "overwhelming majority") ... while 20 is in my honest opinion quite close to "not many people" ...
My point stands unshaken.
Fun fact: the bias of the sample here is in FAVOR of Larian, not against it.
How exactly can people who came to complain about something Larian did can be concidered to be in favor of Larian?
The people who hang around here are at very least interested in the game and committed to hang around and play the EA.
Yes, people are interested in game ... they are even interested in providing their opinions ...
But if you read (
after you will be done with judging other people capability in gamar, at least enough to show your own) that argument properly ... you should easily find out that the argument was about that comitment and interest was the problem.
You are once again splitting hair and defending something bad for the sake of defending it.
You should take your crystal ball to service, it seems to be broken.
---
I agree that most data are "questionnable", but it's still data and a "yes or no" does not allow much ambiguity.
Ambiguity is not the problem here ...
Yes, you have only two options ... and yes, those options are clearly distinguishable one from another ...
But the problem is that while you are asking 100 / 1000 / 10 000 / 100 000 / 1 000 000 people ... in group that clearly is biased ... you never get proper results. :-/
