<b><i>IF YOU DON'T LIKE LOTS OF TEXT, SKIP TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH NOW</B></I>
I played Diablo 2 for YEARS, and the statement is a bit vague because of my many experiences playing in D2. This is because there are two distinctly different views of getting to 99 in D2. Let's get this straight though, the only way to do it was to do Baal runs in hell over and over again. At certain points, (before patches) there were places like the "Siege on Harrogath" and "the ancients" that would give an enormous amount of XP but over time it boiled down to Baal runs. That being said, there were two ways to do Baal runs that vastly differred in the time it took players to earn XP. The "fair" way which would be to actively explore the dungeon and reach the bosses which would take anywhere from 10 - 30 minutes (depending on your gear of course). And the "Cheap" method which consisted of finding a decent bot, and following them on their all night runs.
Following bots allowed players to achieve massive amounts of XP in a very short amount of time thus lessening the time it took a single player to reach level 99 to roughly a few weeks (give or take depending on the amount of sleep you needed). Whereas doing it the old fashioned way could literally take a player months to get there. All of this because of the time difference in doing Baal runs behind a bot the "Cheap" way, or the "Fair" way.
So my question is - when Blizz made that statement, did they base it off a players ability to reach level 99 in a certain time following a bot, the old fashioned way, or neither? And how did they come to that conclusion?
Honestly makes no difference to me, just curious is all.