Maintenance for the week of September 15:
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
· Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
· PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 15, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
· Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
· PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
Auction House
-
Tusnelda✭✭Yes!I'd like to quote myself from May, 6. The result didn't change since then, but the amount of voters is now 1158...More people voted since the last time I looked at this poll, but still the same result: 60% want an Auction House and 39% don't.
Please remove @userid from Tamriel and replace it with our charnames0 -
Allyah✭✭✭No!
That's the funny thing about numbers. You need a lot more than results from one question to give you an accurate picture of what the results actually mean.3 -
Dyvim✭✭✭Yes!
That's the funny thing about numbers. You need a lot more than results from one question to give you an accurate picture of what the results actually mean.
Yeah, those blatantly obvious yes/no questions are real killers when it comes to interpretation...especially when they tell you what you don't want to hear and put more nails in the coffin of your already weak argument.
So uh, actually, in this case the RESULTS do indeed SPEAK for THEMSELVES. No interpretation is needed, unless you are trying to twist your way away from the obvious.Edited by Dyvim on May 23, 2014 7:14PMAngels are bright still, though the brightest fell... -S.1 -
Allyah✭✭✭No!
You missed my point but given your track record with comprehension, that isn't very surprising. I'd spell it out for you but, again, why bother?
That's the funny thing about numbers. You need a lot more than results from one question to give you an accurate picture of what the results actually mean.
Yeah, those blatantly obvious yes/no questions are real killers when it comes to interpretation...especially when they tell you what you don't want to hear and put more nails in the coffin of your already weak argument.
So uh, actually, in this case the RESULTS do indeed SPEAK for THEMSELVES. No interpretation is needed, unless you are trying to twist your way away from the obvious.0 -
Dyvim✭✭✭Yes!The problem isn't on my end, you poor little confused person. If you cant handle having your fallacious statements challenged and decimated, perhaps you should refrain from making them.
The point was simple. You responded to a person that was referencing the outcome of this poll, which is a simple yes/no question, by suggesting that somehow a clear yes/no question, with a clear majority indicated among the respondents, is somehow NOT clear. That is as laughable as the rest of your postings.
Or maybe you would like us to believe the results are not the results? Actually you can get a simple answer to a simple question and have it be definitive.Edited by Dyvim on May 23, 2014 8:06PMAngels are bright still, though the brightest fell... -S.1 -
Zorrashi✭✭✭✭✭No!I hate the idea of a world-wide auction house.
However, I dislike many issues with the current guild stores. Fact of the matter is, I'm not willing to join 5 guilds solely to sell my wares (don't judge. That's just my play style). The guild store seems constricting to economic growth given the low dispersal of goods given the amount of players who are either like me or have relatively inactive guilds.
If there was a way to expand the guild stores to be open to more guilds/people by way of some alliance of something, then I would be happier.0 -
Allyah✭✭✭No!
Lol...I suggested nothing of the sort. That is you misinterpreting what I was saying. You can get a simple answer to a simple question but that doesn't mean it is definitive. Still waiting on you to prove my statement fallacious and decimate it. Here. I'll post it again to help you out:The problem isn't on my end, you poor little confused person. If you cant handle having your fallacious statements challenged and decimated, perhaps you should refrain from making them.
The point was simple. You responded to a person that was referencing the outcome of this poll, which is a simple yes/no question, by suggesting that somehow a clear yes/no question, with a clear majority indicated among the respondents, is somehow NOT clear. That is as laughable as the rest of your postings.
Or maybe you would like us to believe the results are not the results? Actually you can get a simple answer to a simple question and have it be definitive.
I'll give you a hint about what I was suggesting... Think mathematically.
That's the funny thing about numbers. You need a lot more than results from one question to give you an accurate picture of what the results actually mean.0 -
Dyvim✭✭✭Yes!lol, I have no desire to try and crystal ball what is going on in your head or look for your "special" meanings. That is the funny thing about language...if you are relatively proficient at it, you can speak plainly enough, no hints required.
Yes means yes. No means no. Breaking out the tea leaves, or trying to obfuscate the result with some departure into statistical theory for the poll at the root of this thread is silly. No need to twist like a pretzel to understand the results...or in your case to try and obscure the forest with the trees.Edited by Dyvim on May 23, 2014 9:44PMAngels are bright still, though the brightest fell... -S.1 -
Allyah✭✭✭No!
My meaning was perfectly clear. Hence, my laughter that you didn't understand or that you was deliberately misunderstanding. I simply mentioned that the results of a yes or no question tells you nothing more than one thing and that the issue is much more complicated than that. There was no departure into statistical theory. But let's examine the real issue here: that you are apparently unable to understand what people are saying when you don't agree with what they say.
lol, I have no desire to try and crystal ball what is going on in your head or look for your "special" meanings. That is the funny thing about language...if you are relatively proficient at it, you can speak plainly enough, no hints required.
Lol...I suggested nothing of the sort. That is you misinterpreting what I was saying. You can get a simple answer to a simple question but that doesn't mean it is definitive. Still waiting on you to prove my statement fallacious and decimate it. Here. I'll post it again to help you out:The problem isn't on my end, you poor little confused person. If you cant handle having your fallacious statements challenged and decimated, perhaps you should refrain from making them.
The point was simple. You responded to a person that was referencing the outcome of this poll, which is a simple yes/no question, by suggesting that somehow a clear yes/no question, with a clear majority indicated among the respondents, is somehow NOT clear. That is as laughable as the rest of your postings.
Or maybe you would like us to believe the results are not the results? Actually you can get a simple answer to a simple question and have it be definitive.
I'll give you a hint about what I was suggesting... Think mathematically.
That's the funny thing about numbers. You need a lot more than results from one question to give you an accurate picture of what the results actually mean.
Yes means yes. No means no. Breaking out the tea leaves, or trying to obfuscate the result with some departure into statistical theory for the poll at the root of this thread is silly. No need to twist like a pretzel to understand the results...or in your case to try and obscure the forest with the trees.
Also, your penchant for analogies that don't work (for your point at least)
"Obscure the forest with the trees."
Statistics would cover the big picture containing many smaller things - forest.
Poll would cover one thing only. - tree
In this case, you only further the point of my original post. So, thank you.
Perhaps it is you who are oblivious to the forest because you want people to only focus on one tree.0 -
Yes!A universal server + AH would be a disaster to ESO game design.
Who said anything about having a universal AH?
Have it like eve online where the trading system is hub based (not global), of course you'd end up with one city that becomes a big trade hub but in general people would be separated by their areas level/VR range i.e. you wouldn't get vets putting rank 10 epics on the pacts Davon's Watch market. Each zone would have it's own "Jita" rather than having just one gigantic market.
2 -
Reykice✭✭✭✭✭Yes!While some may think its fun to search in 5 different guilds and not just a global one... i think its a bad design.1
-
Yes!
I join guilds for, and to make, friends, not sell to them. I have always felt that guild is family and you help them, freely.k9mouse wrote:I feel the same -- I do not want to talk some UI screen trade goods! I like the fact that we talk to "real" people to trade -- and some cases, we will make "friends" doing so!
And where do you actually think those bots are currently selling their ill gotten goods? 2,500 people per account in 5 guilds ... There is certainly no where near enough chatter in general chat for all of them.Milktray wrote:All those bots you see that start to run below the ground and then mine the ore etc .. THATS what will fill this AH you guys want.
And with self professed guild members admitting they buy up goods from the guild store to sell in general chat spam....
I remember there being whole guilds of gold sellers, so why would that change now just because there is no AH?
Thank you guilds, and your stores for bots. 1 -
Dyvim✭✭✭Yes!
My meaning was perfectly clear. Hence, my laughter that you didn't understand or that you was deliberately misunderstanding. I simply mentioned that the results of a yes or no question tells you nothing more than one thing and that the issue is much more complicated than that. There was no departure into statistical theory. But let's examine the real issue here: that you are apparently unable to understand what people are saying when you don't agree with what they say.
lol, I have no desire to try and crystal ball what is going on in your head or look for your "special" meanings. That is the funny thing about language...if you are relatively proficient at it, you can speak plainly enough, no hints required.
Lol...I suggested nothing of the sort. That is you misinterpreting what I was saying. You can get a simple answer to a simple question but that doesn't mean it is definitive. Still waiting on you to prove my statement fallacious and decimate it. Here. I'll post it again to help you out:The problem isn't on my end, you poor little confused person. If you cant handle having your fallacious statements challenged and decimated, perhaps you should refrain from making them.
The point was simple. You responded to a person that was referencing the outcome of this poll, which is a simple yes/no question, by suggesting that somehow a clear yes/no question, with a clear majority indicated among the respondents, is somehow NOT clear. That is as laughable as the rest of your postings.
Or maybe you would like us to believe the results are not the results? Actually you can get a simple answer to a simple question and have it be definitive.
I'll give you a hint about what I was suggesting... Think mathematically.
That's the funny thing about numbers. You need a lot more than results from one question to give you an accurate picture of what the results actually mean.
Yes means yes. No means no. Breaking out the tea leaves, or trying to obfuscate the result with some departure into statistical theory for the poll at the root of this thread is silly. No need to twist like a pretzel to understand the results...or in your case to try and obscure the forest with the trees.
Also, your penchant for analogies that don't work (for your point at least)
"Obscure the forest with the trees."
Statistics would cover the big picture containing many smaller things - forest.
Poll would cover one thing only. - tree
In this case, you only further the point of my original post. So, thank you.
Perhaps it is you who are oblivious to the forest because you want people to only focus on one tree.
Wow, you are just your own little ball of confusion. No discourse can be had with you. The issue is quite simple...do players want an AH in the game or not. The answer is also quite simple. It only seems to get complicated to you, when you try to make it so. Have fun with that...Edited by Dyvim on May 24, 2014 8:24PMAngels are bright still, though the brightest fell... -S.1 -
Yes!@Dyvim Hi
I think the YES or NO poll has Allyah confused because the Yes and No (clear cut answers) only add up to a total of 99%. That "missing" 1% are those that never voted, but weighed in with their own person statements of Yes or No, while not feeling strongly enough, or sure enough, to place a definitive vote.
It is all I can figure for the troubled concepts and "fervor" of mythical numbering that is used for an argument contrary to the base addition of the Yes or No responses.
If not for that oh so confusing 1%, then I am at more of a loss, as numeric evidence that is proven time and again is substantiation in this matter.
Don't beat your head up, there are others more in need , as there are those that reason does not apply. 2 -
Mendra✭✭No!No just because i like the idea.
I've seen somewhere there is no AH because on mega server it will be technically hard to do, and because they dont want that kind of scaled economy too...
But still the idea seems quite new for me so why not ?0 -
Allyah✭✭✭No!@Dyvim @Arsvita
I am not the one confused. You are. As well as being just stubborn and immovable in your thoughts. I never said the question wasn't simple. The numbers give you the answer to one question but that answer doesn't give you an accurate picture of the bigger picture. <-- That is what I was saying the whole time and it was perfectly clear to anyone who didn't read my comment with prejudice.
My meaning was perfectly clear. Hence, my laughter that you didn't understand or that you was deliberately misunderstanding. I simply mentioned that the results of a yes or no question tells you nothing more than one thing and that the issue is much more complicated than that. There was no departure into statistical theory. But let's examine the real issue here: that you are apparently unable to understand what people are saying when you don't agree with what they say.
lol, I have no desire to try and crystal ball what is going on in your head or look for your "special" meanings. That is the funny thing about language...if you are relatively proficient at it, you can speak plainly enough, no hints required.
Lol...I suggested nothing of the sort. That is you misinterpreting what I was saying. You can get a simple answer to a simple question but that doesn't mean it is definitive. Still waiting on you to prove my statement fallacious and decimate it. Here. I'll post it again to help you out:The problem isn't on my end, you poor little confused person. If you cant handle having your fallacious statements challenged and decimated, perhaps you should refrain from making them.
The point was simple. You responded to a person that was referencing the outcome of this poll, which is a simple yes/no question, by suggesting that somehow a clear yes/no question, with a clear majority indicated among the respondents, is somehow NOT clear. That is as laughable as the rest of your postings.
Or maybe you would like us to believe the results are not the results? Actually you can get a simple answer to a simple question and have it be definitive.
I'll give you a hint about what I was suggesting... Think mathematically.
That's the funny thing about numbers. You need a lot more than results from one question to give you an accurate picture of what the results actually mean.
Yes means yes. No means no. Breaking out the tea leaves, or trying to obfuscate the result with some departure into statistical theory for the poll at the root of this thread is silly. No need to twist like a pretzel to understand the results...or in your case to try and obscure the forest with the trees.
Also, your penchant for analogies that don't work (for your point at least)
"Obscure the forest with the trees."
Statistics would cover the big picture containing many smaller things - forest.
Poll would cover one thing only. - tree
In this case, you only further the point of my original post. So, thank you.
Perhaps it is you who are oblivious to the forest because you want people to only focus on one tree.
Wow, you are just your own little ball of confusion. No discourse can be had with you. The issue is quite simple...do players want an AH in the game or not. The answer is also quite simple. It only seems to get complicated to you, when you try to make it so. Have fun with that...1 -
Welcey✭No!The main reason I do not want an auction house is because not having one gives the game less of a global economy feel. You have to know someone who knows someone or find a guild that has a special bent, and overall it's a lot more immersive. If you can just hop on an auction house and buy anything anyone else anywhere in the game is selling, it would really cheapen things, and make finding things a lot less exciting. I imagine if they still wanted an item to be rare, they would have to lower the drop rate a whole lot, and then the only practical source would end up being the AH, because the drops would be so low. If there was an AH, I would deal with it, but I really don't think it should be that easy to find anything we want. I think sometimes, we should not be able to find exactly what we want. It encourages face to face trading in several ways, and makes it less like e-bay and more social. When I sell things or buy them from people in this game, I have a conversation with them! Isn't that unusual?Edited by Welcey on May 26, 2014 7:25AM0
-
david_bjamminub17_ESOSoul ShrivenNo!The people who vote yes are just lazy. So the guild store doesn't always have what you need? QQ MOAR
The guild store is a perfect way to instill the "gear grind" or "zone chat barter" that makes this game fun. Not to mention it stabilizes the economy ALOT! The guild store was an ingenious idea and i'm sure whoever pitched the idea was a smart individual who was thinking about long term economics.
A server-wide AH would ruin the economy and this game.
One of the best things about there being no "Giant Mega AH" is that you can easily sell a decent item you found while farming or leveling for a decent amount of gold in zone chat.
If there was an AH then you would probably trash 99% of the crap u find. but as of now even greens are useful to a leveling player.
Prices would drop so much because all an AH does "given enough time"
Is give too much supply and not enough demand.
Now days, in the gaming community players just complain about everything....Instead of complaining about the gripes you have, how bout you just play the game? Nothing in the world is perfect.....Except Jessica Biel...she is so perfect.....
0 -
Thrawniel✭✭✭Yes!Yes!
1. When you are in social guild, selling goods to guildies in unacceptable (otherwise it is a horrible social guild). Not to mention that smaller guilds cannot have guild store at all.
2. Trade guilds are not effective. Too little people(500 ppl for entire continent? Are you serious? It needs to be at least 5000 to be effective!), too little content in general and all high-demand things are never sold there, because it is faster to sell them directly in chat. Which leads to...
3. ...constant WTS/WTB spam in zone chat, followed by arguing about prices etc. I keep an eye on /zone to see if dolmens/world bosses are up, or if someone looks for the same group content as me, and all this 'price-check on [random piece of crap i just found]!!!', WTS/WBT spam (in rainbow colors 'thanks' to that stupid addon) and price arguing make me sick and wanting to quit the game all together.
4. As practice showed, lack of AH did not help with goldsellers. On the contrary, they became even more annoying, spamming ingame emails, etc. Which showed that this idea of economy failed completely, so please stop being creative and trying to invent bicycle all over again, and bring the system that works well in all other games.
Not to mention, lack of AH causes a great disbalance in income across the board. Right now, no-lifers that can WTS/WTB all day long in chat and profit(and then derail all threads about horse/bank space/repairs costs pricing with their claims 'I have 100mil gold I have nothing to spend on! it Is not expensive!!!111oneone' ), while other players with less free time in their hands and who would rather play game instead of spamming the chat have almost no means to make profit aside from quests and struggle with basic ingame needs. Of course, no-lifers will find a way to play AH as well, but still it will be easier for more casual players.
5. Some people prefer not to interact with people outside of their circle of friends, so they are excluded from trade completely. They are lost buyers, they are lost sellers. And there's a lot of them (especially since many ppl play this game because of TES and see MMO aspect as unavoidable evil to play new TES game). Impersonal AH would be the best for them and best for overall economy.
And rabid extroverts can go and pledge themselves to Molag Bal for all I care. Forcing people to communicate with you will not make them like you more.1 -
Allyah✭✭✭No!
Um... explain why/how it is unacceptable, please?Yes!
1. When you are in social guild, selling goods to guildies in unacceptable (otherwise it is a horrible social guild). Not to mention that smaller guilds cannot have guild store at all.
I don't see how 500 people isn't enough people to trade with. I can see it being a problem if the majority of those people aren't active players. Lack of people to trade with could just be a reflection bad guild choices.2.Trade guilds are not effective. Too little people(500 ppl for entire continent? Are you serious? It needs to be at least 5000 to be effective!), too little content in general and all high-demand things are never sold there, because it is faster to sell them directly in chat. Which leads to...
This would be solved if people would learn their armor/weapons aren't worth buying/selling unless they are purple or orange. Seems easier to let people learn that rather than trying to implement a system in the game when many don't want it and there are other problems that need to be addressed first.3. ...constant WTS/WTB spam in zone chat, followed by arguing about prices etc. I keep an eye on /zone to see if dolmens/world bosses are up, or if someone looks for the same group content as me, and all this 'price-check on [random piece of crap i just found]!!!', WTS/WBT spam (in rainbow colors 'thanks' to that stupid addon) and price arguing make me sick and wanting to quit the game all together.
Implementing an AH isn't a solution to gold sellers, either. Are you suggesting that the programmers "quick fix" it to where the gold sellers exist, but it's harder to notice them? It doesn't show a failed economy and there are plenty other games that don't/didn't have a centralized AH.4. As practice showed, lack of AH did not help with goldsellers. On the contrary, they became even more annoying, spamming ingame emails, etc. Which showed that this idea of economy failed completely, so please stop being creative and trying to invent bicycle all over again, and bring the system that works well in all other games.
Proof or it doesn't exist.Not to mention, lack of AH causes a great disbalance in income across the board. Right now, no-lifers that can WTS/WTB all day long in chat and profit(and then derail all threads about horse/bank space/repairs costs pricing with their claims 'I have 100mil gold I have nothing to spend on! it Is not expensive!!!111oneone' ), while other players with less free time in their hands and who would rather play game instead of spamming the chat have almost no means to make profit aside from quests and struggle with basic ingame needs. Of course, no-lifers will find a way to play AH as well, but still it will be easier for more casual players.
I don't understand playing an MMO if you are so dead-set against communicating with other people. As for the people playing it because it is TES game, I'm sure many of them are satisfied with doing everything on their own. Which is something this game allows quite well. Really, Skyrim is still available and is similar enough without having to deal with the social aspect.5. Some people prefer not to interact with people outside of their circle of friends, so they are excluded from trade completely. They are lost buyers, they are lost sellers. And there's a lot of them (especially since many ppl play this game because of TES and see MMO aspect as unavoidable evil to play new TES game). Impersonal AH would be the best for them and best for overall economy.
No (real) offense intended, but if your trying to force people to communicate with you or you are so antisocial that you can't handle someone speaking to you, you are doing it wrong.And rabid extroverts can go and pledge themselves to Molag Bal for all I care. Forcing people to communicate with you will not make them like you more.0 -
Orizuru✭✭✭No!
That's the funny thing about numbers. You need a lot more than results from one question to give you an accurate picture of what the results actually mean.
Yeah, those blatantly obvious yes/no questions are real killers when it comes to interpretation...especially when they tell you what you don't want to hear and put more nails in the coffin of your already weak argument.
So uh, actually, in this case the RESULTS do indeed SPEAK for THEMSELVES. No interpretation is needed, unless you are trying to twist your way away from the obvious.
Surveys and polls are rarely free from confirmation bias. In most cases, the survey itself is biased because you don't know the qualifications of the person taking the survey.
For example, you could survey 10,000 people about Women's Health Issues and you might find that over 8,000 of them think Issue A is the leading cause of Disease Y. Then you might take a second look at the survey and realize that 9,000 of the people who responded were men.
This is why most surveys or polls that are done for the purpose of gathering meaningful data take measures to ensure the respondents are knowledgeable of the topic being surveyed or polled. They also try to get tens to hundreds of thousands of responses so they can identify statistical outliers and anomalies.
Surveying or polling 1200 people on these forums really doesn't tell you much.
Honestly, if you put this question in front of every player in the game the numbers would probably end up being closer to 80% in favor of an AH. All that really shows though is that it's a popular idea. It does nothing to prove that it is even remotely a good idea. That's the main problem with these polls on the forums. All they really do is let people agree or disagree with each other.2 -
Orizuru✭✭✭No!I know many don't like the idea of having an AH. However, I am sick and tired of seeing the zone chats filled with people selling stuff. My guild is small so I don't have a guild store open.
You should probably treat that as a separate issue. Implementation of an AH really won't solve the problem you are describing. It has the potential to reduce the number of people doing it, but it won't stop the behavior or create a system where they are prevented from shouting to sell their items. In fact, if we had an AH, it's more than likely that some players will begin to use public channels to advertise the items they have listed in the AH.
While there are some overlapping implications, an AH won't stop zone chat spam, and stopping zone chat spam won't create an AH. From a logical viewpoint, if you care about both issues, they should be discussed separately to ensure that both get the necessary discussion to achieve the desired results.
0 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes!I know many don't like the idea of having an AH. However, I am sick and tired of seeing the zone chats filled with people selling stuff. My guild is small so I don't have a guild store open.
.
While there are some overlapping implications, an AH won't stop zone chat spam, and stopping zone chat spam won't create an AH. From a logical viewpoint, if you care about both issues, they should be discussed separately to ensure that both get the necessary discussion to achieve the desired results.
It may not completely stop it. But it would dramatically scale it back.Edited by Jeremy on May 28, 2014 2:01PM0 -
Orizuru✭✭✭No!I know many don't like the idea of having an AH. However, I am sick and tired of seeing the zone chats filled with people selling stuff. My guild is small so I don't have a guild store open.
.
While there are some overlapping implications, an AH won't stop zone chat spam, and stopping zone chat spam won't create an AH. From a logical viewpoint, if you care about both issues, they should be discussed separately to ensure that both get the necessary discussion to achieve the desired results.
It may not completely stop it. But it would dramatically scale it back.
This is true, but in the context of a discussion about the need for an AH, it's a straw man that uses fallacious logic.
0 -
No!I prefer doing charity for my guilgmates and working hard for what im looking for.0 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes!I know many don't like the idea of having an AH. However, I am sick and tired of seeing the zone chats filled with people selling stuff. My guild is small so I don't have a guild store open.
.
While there are some overlapping implications, an AH won't stop zone chat spam, and stopping zone chat spam won't create an AH. From a logical viewpoint, if you care about both issues, they should be discussed separately to ensure that both get the necessary discussion to achieve the desired results.
It may not completely stop it. But it would dramatically scale it back.
This is true, but in the context of a discussion about the need for an AH, it's a straw man that uses fallacious logic.
I'm not sure why you say that.
I could understand why someone who was interested in cleaning up zone chat would want an auction house. Seems like valid logic to me.0 -
Jeremy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes!meghuskoow wrote: »I prefer doing charity for my guilgmates and working hard for what im looking for.
And that's fine. But adding an auction house would not prevent you from doing those things. So why be against something that wouldn't affect you negatively - but make the game more enjoyable for the rest of us?0
