Having trouble completing the tier 3 Final Battle. Any tricks and easy ways to clear it? I thought just having a week long speed buff would collect items fast enough, but no go. Any help is appreciated.

Careful with the Discord thing, though. The people there are...unreliable. You might get some good advice, but double-check everything. They're not very good at fact-checking. Take everything they say with a grain of salt. Staying skeptical will help mitigate a lot of the misinformation.

The information in Discord is reliable, we just assume that people asking for help want to play efficiently, which animenut did not want to do. We're happy to help anyone, and in fact spent quite a while trying to help him as well despite his resistance to it. Feel free to pop in and take a look for yourself. (Unlike animenut, who has not actually even bothered to pop in to look at our info there before calling it unreliable.) No chatting or account necessary to view what we have, but you will need an Discord account with a verified email to participate in conversations.

Edit: It looks like anubischick's link is only valid for another 12 hours or so. In the event that link doesn't work, you can use discord.gg/uHCZwsY as well.

I might be wrong, been a while since I did it, but I seem to remember curses don't spawn on boss zones, so they're good to chill at for a bit and catch your breath. Also using Mindy miming Karen at the front can eat like 18 curses. If you do check out discord we can maybe help you out a bit more.

Anubischick is cool and is really good at coloring :D

I speak from experience. That is all. The evidence is available in simple black and white a few clicks away. And now, even within this thread. In this thread, I said nothing about my disdain for Discord itself - only the linked group - and yet they've decided to draw conclusions from words that were not said within the topic and use irrelevant information to "devalue" the speaker instead of actually challenging their point. If you don't know the term, look up "ad hominem" to see why it applies to the "He doesn't like Discord, so he views everything that comes from Discord negatively, don't listen to him" debate, and why it's a HUGE red flag.

This is exactly what I meant, David. They twist words, exclude details, put words in peoples' mouths, and don't take lightly to having their ideas challenged. Show them even the slightest amount of scrutiny and they start excising you.

Tin posts assumptions based on grievances. "Animenut does not want to play efficiently." Where'd he pull that from? Because I disagreed? That's awfully arrogant to assert that any way other way of thinking than his must be wrong, and fiercely presumptuous (and honestly, ridiculous) to suggest that the person must willingly want to cripple themselves. As said above, that is overtly putting words in my mouth. Then says the group tried for "quite a while" to help me, despite following that statement by suggesting that I cannot criticize a Discord group that I would not visit. Another example of contradiction. A group is making their ideas known without the need for visiting the group. I judged the ideas being shared. If the ideas are not representative of the group they preach about, then why would they claim otherwise? And if the ideas ARE representative of their group, then I have full credibility to speak about the group's findings based on what those people said. This was a constant theme in the other thread - saying one thing, but then implying the exact opposite, while claiming both to be true. Despite the fact that "We told him a lot about it" and "He knows nothing about it" are directly contradictory, Tin (and others) frequently use this logical fallacy to defend themselves.

Then, as previously mentioned, Anubis's first and only defense was flagrant ad hominem.

When you hold their statements under scrutiny to critically analyze their arguments, they fall apart every time because they are more concerned with defending their findings than they are of accepting new information. They only listen to input that validates their pre-existing beliefs while ignoring all facts that risk challenging those findings. That is called an "echo chamber" and is LITERALLY the exact OPPOSITE of what science is all about.

If these are the kinds of people you want to trust for "fair and unbiased" insight, then that's your grave to dig.

Lastly, if anyone here wants to try to say something like "He's also putting words in our mouths", save it. I actually explain how and why I reached the conclusions I did. "He disagreed with us, so he doesn't want to play efficiently" and "He doesn't like Discord, so he is biased against Discord's findings and should be ignored" are not strong arguments because they lack sound, supportive details. Disagreeing with you does not support the conclusion that I "do not want to play efficiently" because a logical disagreement has no connection to desires (e.g. If we disagree on a math problem, that does not prove that I'm acting out of malice), just like noting my aversion to Discord does not prove that the aversion must inform my conclusions (e.g. If I say "I do not like apples", that does not automatically mean that if I don't like the color red, then it has any connection to the fact that some apples are red).

This is what a solid, logic-driven, evidence-supported debate looks like, not "You disagree with me, so you're wrong." Honestly, a lot of their "debates" remind me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

Hey David. Ideally you want crusaders that increase double-drop chance, like Viktor biting leprechauns, Billy, Casey, or Sjin. You also want crusaders that slow monster movement, like Zombie Winter, Brogon, or Gloria. And you really want at least 3 taskmasters clicking on field to pick up quest items, or have Penny.

Anubis, you're quoting an entirely different thread. I used information gathered in that thread to formulate my conclusion of your side, but did not reference my opinion of Discord at all within THIS thread. YOU brought that up where it was not relevant. YOU brought up the Discord group in this thread, so I spoke about it. I did not mention my thoughts about Discord, so you had no thru-line to bringing that up in this thread. I stayed relevant to the thread. You did not.

Yet another example of the "Pro-Discord" crew failing at logic.

Also, "Animenut, firstly, please have the respect to refer to me by my name, not a shortening of it. You have not been granted that familiarity."

David, if this doesn't prove how incredibly petty and small-minded they are, not much else will. There's no two ways around that. Getting touchy over the chosen vernacular of a username because of "granted familiarity" is just...dumb. Especially given that she referred to the OP as "David" and not his full username, and I don't see where she was "granted familiarity". CLEARLY that whole "familiarity" garbage was only just now made up for the sake of spite. These people, just...they don't hide their vices very well.

On to Tin...

>"No proof"

4 pages of proof just a few clicks away. Proof given within this same thread, fully explained. As usual, you can't handle being challenged without contextualizing it as "an attack". I just came in to give the information your side would conveniently leave out. If you think the full truth is an "attack", that's a red flag. I literally told him to be a free thinker by not blindly trusting what others say and making sure to do his own research on top of what others present. You think telling someone to be a reasonably skeptical critical thinker is an attack on you? That's telling.

"I don't see why we should have to defend ourselves at all."

"...if you need to reply with this many words..."

"It's a waste of time trying to convince you of anything."

Spoken like someone with an aversion to supporting their own argument with details. Unlike you, I don't just spout stuff and expect people to believe me at my word. I actually bother to logically substantiate my claims.

"...in a combative way with nearly everyone else..."

Combative? The irony.

"...maybe everyone else isn't the problem?"

So the majority decides the facts? That's news to me. I thought facts decide the facts. You can all agree to be wrong. That doesn't make you less wrong. It just makes you wrong in unison.

Humans believed we couldn't fly, then planes were invented. Humans believed heaven was unreachable, then we entered the stars. I'm not claiming to be some world-changing revolutionary, but the point is that sometimes, yes, the majority is flat-out wrong. Hell, HISTORICALLY, the majority is usually wrong. It tends to take some big breakthrough from an individual or small group of individuals to enlighten the majority. So have I considered that maybe everyone else isn't the problem? I have, and then I thought about it, analyzed both sides from an outside perspective, removing all bias and viewing the discussions all from an objective, literal standpoint, and arrived at the conclusion that I am not the problem. Why? Because I've actually bothered to explain myself, analyze myself and others, and provide rationale in the form of a clear line of logic for my provided conclusions. What has your side done? Berated someone for daring to disagree, put words in their mouth, twist, tamper with, and omit important details, and flat-out lied.

I've mentioned the value of being a skeptic; a critical thinker. I've preached the worth of playing devil's advocate in order to test a theory by holding that idea up to scrutiny. I am not an exception to that, even from myself. I question myself all the time. I doubt myself, debate myself, and actively seek to disprove myself all the time. The reason I am so confident in myself is not because I never question myself, it's because I ALWAYS question myself. I scrutinize my own debates in order to strengthen their credibility by exorcising the logical failings within them. I'm confident in what I say because I question the validity of what I'm about to say, and if it's valid, then say it. If someone disagrees with me, I weigh what they said against what I said, analyze it objectively, and speak the results. Sometimes I am right, sometimes they are right, sometimes we're both right in some measure. I have no interest in being right. I am interested in facts. The reason I contest you is because the claims you provide do not hold up to scrutiny. I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I care about the facts. But I am not going to inaccurately admit I'm wrong just to appease you.

So let me ask you. Do you question yourself? Do you scrutinize your own thoughts and debate against yourself to double-check your own credibility? And when contrasting information is provided to you, do you treat that information as equally credible to your own thoughts throughout the entire process of analyzing both sides? Do you scrutinize yourself as much, or more, than you scrutinize others? If so, then why write me off when I give you so much information to work with? If not, then how can you pretend that your confidence isn't a product of willful ignorance?

Either way, your apparent fear of my long replies is only further evidence to suggest that you don't know how to handle someone that can actually formulate a debate beyond mere shallow contradiction. If you're out of your depth, admit it and I'll be happy to dumb my replies down for you. Hell, I'll provide an example below as proof of concept. Because, y'know, I don't make claims that I can't or am unwilling to back up.

This entire comment, summarized: I provided proof and you ignored it. You just keep coming up with excuses to avoid admitting that you don't know how to defend yourself against overwhelming logic, then speak in passive aggressive jabs that highlight your own projection. Why CAN'T everyone else be the problem? Is that so impossible? At least I'm putting in the effort to explain and rationalize, unlike you, who just dismisses and makes excuses.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-to-tell-if-you-re-a-jerk

Thanks bungobunce, those characters did the trick!!