Tired Of Pepega Invuln Design Classes

[Sahne.6950]

Sry if this looks overdramatic, but this guy is making false claims, over and over again while saying i have no clue and need to ask a decent player. 

We have a big talk about it,  only so he says the same dumb thing again hours later... again, quoting, telling to ask a decent player. 

And then he edits everything to look better. he even edited the part where he talks about him editing.

Gotta love it.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

3 hours ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said:

No. What I said, specifically, which Sahne responded to, was

No, what you said was: "yargel bargel! i am going to argue with you about statements you never made because I am taking everything out of context and confusing myself!" That's what you said, and that's what you did.

 

 

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

2 hours ago, Koensol.5860 said:

God you're dramatic

No, Sahne hasn't done anything wrong here in terms of forum conduct. If you carefully actually reread through all of this, that Agri guy is just throwing around nonsense.

A good example of it would be how on page 6 when he tries to correct my grammar during a GW2 balance discussion, saying that "sensical" isn't a word. But anyone can go into an internet word definition search right now, and see that "sensical" is derived from "nonsensical" and "commonsensical" and these terms have been being used since the early 18th century.

This Agri guy is full of bologna man. All he's doing is looking for any possible way to create arguments out of logical fallacies and he doesn't even fact check what he says before he says it. Just about 90% of what he has said in this thread is chuck full of complete bull****.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Trevor Boyer.6524

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Sahne is roleplaying his tempest build on the forums, block-block-invuln-reflect while holding the point.

[agrippastrilemma.8741]

3 hours ago, Sahne.6950 said:

Sry if this looks overdramatic, but this guy is making false claims, over and over again while saying i have no clue and need to ask a decent player. 

We have a big talk about it,  only so he says the same dumb thing again hours later... again, quoting, telling to ask a decent player. 

And then he edits everything to look better. he even edited the part where he talks about him editing.

Gotta love it.

I have not make any false claims. I only edited to add some new information seconds after I made the posts because I forgot to write it, no information was changed or arguments altered. This is a copout.

Edited December 14, 2022 by agrippastrilemma.8741

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

11 minutes ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said:

This is such a lame copout. I specifically noted quote "this is beside the point" when I corrected that word, because I did not do it as an argument (which you are now pretending) but as a helpful pointer. Merriam-Webster and Oxford are considered the two most reputable english dictionaries, let's look for sensical:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=sensical

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensical

Oh wow, could it be that I was right all along, interesting!

No

sensical def - Search (bing.com)

Go ahead, click on it.

Also, I couldn't understand the other things that you said to me. Could you explain it all again slightly differently?

~ Thanks

[agrippastrilemma.8741]

27 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

No

sensical def - Search (bing.com)

Go ahead, click on it.

Using Wikipedia (Wiktionary), as a source instead of Oxford or Merriam, the two most reputable online English dictionaries in the world (Merriam for US English and Oxford for UK English) that are compiled by lexicographers and experts rather than random people - hilarious.

Anyway, I'm making a new thread with actual practical solutions instead. Especially since you don't even respond to anything relevant such as: 

 

Where I respond to some baseless accusations you made towards me. Because you don't have a response.

27 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

Also, I couldn't understand the other things that you said to me. Could you explain it all again slightly differently?

~ Thanks

Sure, first let's quote it:

Quote

This is not how this works, you cannot just say "logical fallacies!", at the very least you have to say which logical fallacy you think I am guilty of.

Just exclaiming that I am doing "logical fallacies" means nothing, you have to say which specific logical fallacies I am guilty of and where.

Quote

Tell me exactly what. Actually, maybe list these 90% of things. Let's see it.

Here I am asking you to say what I did not "fact check", and then to list these 90% of things I have said in this thread which were "chuck full of complete bull****".

Quote

You have completely given up on writing anything of substance and have now reduced yourself to saying:

• You're doing logical fallacies bro
• 90% of what you write is kitten
• You are creating arguments out of nothing
• You are just saying "yargel bargel"
• That's bologna man!
• You're just throwing around nonsense!
• Etc

This just means that you aren't even attempting to write anything of substance.

You're very welcome!

Edited December 15, 2022 by agrippastrilemma.8741

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

26 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

No

sensical def - Search (bing.com)

Go ahead, click on it.

Also, I couldn't understand the other things that you said to me. Could you explain it all again slightly differently?

~ Thanks

FWIW it isn't in MW or Oxford, but is a back-formation, but then language is a living thing so the word not 'currently' in the two big dicts isn't a big deal. They regularly add words that have been in common usage long after their official inclusion, which in a way limits their appeal as an authoritative source on whether a word is 'real' or not.

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Lan Deathrider.5910
typo

[agrippastrilemma.8741]

2 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

FWIW it isn't in MW or Oxford, but is a back-formation, but then language is a living thing so the word not 'currently' in the two big dicts isn't a big deal. They regularly add words that have been in common usage long after their official inclusion, which in a way limits their appeal as an authoritative source on whether a word is 'real' or not.

 

It's real in the sense that people would understand it, they are called "unpaired words", like "nonsensible" (sensible) and "chalant" (nonchalant) and "grunteled" (disgrunteled).

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

1 hour ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said:

It's real in the sense that people would understand it, they are called "unpaired words", like "nonsensible" (sensible) and "chalant" (nonchalant) and "grunteled" (disgrunteled).

 

The word "sensical" was intrinsically derived from the original words "nonsensical" and "commonsensical" which are old words that have been being used since the 1650s actually. These words are in every dictionary, including:

Nonsensical Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

nonsensical adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

The term & use of "sensical" has been modernly cited in its use by many authors and even legal sources. The link I posted of that Bing search has 101 sources to reference this. And from what I'm looking through, Merriam and Oxford are the only two online dictionaries that do not list "sensical" as an identified modernly used word. This is because of exactly what @Lan Deathrider.5910 just explained in his previous post.

 

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

10 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

 

The word "sensical" was intrinsically derived from the original words "nonsensical" and "commonsensical" which are old words that have been being used since the 1650s actually. These words are in every dictionary, including:

Nonsensical Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

nonsensical adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

The term & use of "sensical" has been modernly cited in its use by many authors and even legal sources. The link I posted of that Bing search has 101 sources to reference this. And from what I'm looking through, Merriam and Oxford are the only two online dictionaries that do not list "sensical" as an identified modernly used word. This is because of exactly what @Lan Deathrider.5910 just explained in his previous post.

 

Language is a living thing. We've also used the singular "they" since Chaucer, but has until recently been considered to be grammatically incorrect.

[Sahne.6950]

doublepost sowwy.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Sahne.6950]

10 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Sahne is roleplaying his tempest build on the forums, block-block-invuln-reflect while holding the point.

Quality post. 😂

Edited December 15, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Terrorhuz.4695]

16 hours ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said:

Here are some things I've advocated for on Mesmer:

• Removing distortion from Blurred Inscriptions
• Removing Aegis on Bladesongs on Virtuoso
• Not adding Distortion to Virtuoso or Chrono
• Removing/Hard nerfing the confusion on Chaos Armor (Staff #4 skill)
• Removing the passive cleanse from Auspicious Anguish

On a side note, all these are really really really good suggestions

[agrippastrilemma.8741]

7 hours ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

 

The word "sensical" was intrinsically derived from the original words "nonsensical" and "commonsensical" which are old words that have been being used since the 1650s actually. These words are in every dictionary, including:

Nonsensical Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

nonsensical adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

The term & use of "sensical" has been modernly cited in its use by many authors and even legal sources. The link I posted of that Bing search has 101 sources to reference this. And from what I'm looking through, Merriam and Oxford are the only two online dictionaries that do not list "sensical" as an identified modernly used word. This is because of exactly what @Lan Deathrider.5910 just explained in his previous post.

 

Yes, nonsensical is a normal word that it well-used, nobody is disputing that. The other dictionaries you are using are often not made and edited by lexicographers but just random people or laymen (like Wiktionary). Also what you are saying is not true, I just checked on dictionary.com which I believe is the most well-used online dictionary (although less credible than Merriam and Oxford) and it isn't on there either: 

https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=sensical

Nor on the synonym browser thesaurus:

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sensical

Edited December 15, 2022 by agrippastrilemma.8741

[agrippastrilemma.8741]

7 hours ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Language is a living thing. We've also used the singular "they" since Chaucer, but has until recently been considered to be grammatically incorrect.

Yes, of course, that is incredibly obvious. But I am part of this "living". And to me sensical is not a word any more than grunteled or chalant are words - and it would be rejected at the university I went to.

[Sahne.6950]

4 hours ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said:

Yes, of course, that is incredibly obvious. But I am part of this "living". And to me sensical is not a word any more than grunteled or chalant are words - and it would be rejected at the university I went to.

Your totally right with what your saying. It might be rejected at university.

But you instantly understood what Trevor meant when he said sensical, didnt you? Isnt that all that matters?

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

2 hours ago, Sahne.6950 said:

Your totally right with what your saying.

But you instantly understood what Trevor meant when he said sensical, didnt you? Isnt that all that matters?

 

All that matters to this forum user is his great deal of pride.

Check this out, after being requested in this thread multiple times to give an actual statement on this topic instead of only attacking other forum users, he chooses not to do it and then instead makes his own thread to make a statement on this exact same topic:

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Trevor Boyer.6524

[Sahne.6950]

22 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

All that matters to this forum user is his great deal of pride.

Check this out, after being requested in this thread multiple times to give an actual statement on this topic instead of only attacking other forum users, he chooses not to do it, and then instead makes his own thread to make a statement on this exact same topic: 

 

Yeah i noticed, i even liked it. 😅

because the things hes saying there seem reasonable.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

28 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

yeah i noticed, i even liked it.

because the things hes saying there seem reasonable.

Agreed.

But this is where the great deal of pride shines the brightest.

The entire time he threw a fit in here, he knew he had actual good feedback to give, but instead chose not to give that feedback because it would have proved how ridiculous he was being after it was pointed out several times that "He hasn't given any actual statements yet and has only attacked other users with misrepresentations."

Also notice how after the show in here where he acted like he couldn't understand anything that anyone was saying, when he posts his own feedback in a separate thread, he demonstrates how he actually perfectly understood the basis of this thread discussion all along.

That's some impressive forum asswardness even by my standards.

Here's waiting for a grammar correction on the word "asswardness". I want to hear how Oxford says it isn't a word even though he understands exactly what it meant.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Trevor Boyer.6524

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

3 hours ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said:

Yes, nonsensical is a normal word that it well-used, nobody is disputing that. The other dictionaries you are using are often not made and edited by lexicographers but just random people or laymen (like Wiktionary). Also what you are saying is not true, I just checked on dictionary.com which I believe is the most well-used online dictionary (although less credible than Merriam and Oxford) and it isn't on there either: 

https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=sensical

Nor on the synonym browser thesaurus:

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/sensical

You have a serious problem with feeling the need to 100% prove wrong what other people are saying to you, and then when you can't, you attempt to misrepresent what they've said in general as to make them look stupid, and then if that doesn't work, then you start plainly ignoring data they've posted to you.

For example, I linked a Bing search with 101 sources citing the use of the word "sensical" by various authors & legal sources, but now you're acting like that didn't happen and continue to base your argument on a ridiculously small amount of online sources which in your own mind, are the only valid resources. You're also ignoring what @Lan Deathrider.5910 pointed out about how those resources constantly are putting in and taking out words that they deem as "proper", depending on one thing or another per printing.

You don't need to argue endlessly about something that amounts down to opinion. Furthermore, you don't need to reach out and grammar check people in the middle of an online game discussion in attempts to make a jab either.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Trevor Boyer.6524

[Terrorhuz.4695]

21 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

Agreed.

But this is where the great deal of pride shines the brightest.

The entire time he threw a fit in here, he knew he had actual good feedback to give, but instead chose not to give that feedback because it would have proved how ridiculous he was being after it was pointed out several times that "He hasn't given any actual statements yet and has only attacked other users with misrepresentations."

That's an impressive tyrannical forum rampage even by my standards.

He gave feedback, several times, you didn't listen once. The conversation degenerated long ago into a kitten measuring contest, it doesn't make sense to engage any longer in that, but please.

1) Mesmer needs SOME amount of invulnerability as it's the main intended mechanic to survive conditions (because, unlike other classes, we have no kittening cleanse). I expect someone with your experience to actually know that.
2) There's an overabundance of defensive frames in virtuoso, which can be a problem if you really wanted to kill one, but in actual gameplay no virtuoso can ever represent a threat in any way, shape or form; virtuoso is the one and only EoD class that IS NOT problematic in any PvP setting, has never been anything of the sorts and is not even remotely close to becoming one. Could nerf it for all I care, it's a token spec anyway and it can't be deader than dead, but trust me virtuoso isn't the reason why you're losing. From someone with your experience I expect to know that too.
3) The problems with chronomancer are slightly more relevant, but they're not related to invulnerability and they are still limited to chronobunker; either way, that asinine build still loses to the rest of the sidenoding scene: you won't do anything against a decent spellbreaker as they ignore blinds\weakness\CC and shake off the rest of your conditions, you won't do anything against a decent catalyst because they just don't care about conditions and with hammer they outdamage you by far. You can and should nerf it because it's a build that works quite well without any skill requirement, but it's far from uncounterable. From someone with your experience I expect to know that too.

I don't know anything about ele and I won't judge about that, but as far as mesmer goes you're being 100% forum. And I expect you to know that, too.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Terrorhuz.4695

[Sahne.6950]

i have to give him that...., he indeed named a few of the things he says in the other thread. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Sahne.6950]

45 minutes ago, Terrorhuz.4695 said:

He gave feedback, several times, you didn't listen once. The conversation degenerated long ago into a kitten measuring contest, it doesn't make sense to engage any longer in that, but please.

1) Mesmer needs SOME amount of invulnerability as it's the main intended mechanic to survive conditions (because, unlike other classes, we have no kittening cleanse). I expect someone with your experience to actually know that.
2) There's an overabundance of defensive frames in virtuoso, which can be a problem if you really wanted to kill one, but in actual gameplay no virtuoso can ever represent a threat in any way, shape or form; virtuoso is the one and only EoD class that IS NOT problematic in any PvP setting, has never been anything of the sorts and is not even remotely close to becoming one. Could nerf it for all I care, it's a token spec anyway and it can't be deader than dead, but trust me virtuoso isn't the reason why you're losing. From someone with your experience I expect to know that too.
3) The problems with chronomancer are slightly more relevant, but they're not related to invulnerability and they are still limited to chronobunker; either way, that asinine build still loses to the rest of the sidenoding scene: you won't do anything against a decent spellbreaker as they ignore blinds\weakness\CC and shake off the rest of your conditions, you won't do anything against a decent catalyst because they just don't care about conditions and with hammer they outdamage you by far. You can and should nerf it because it's a build that works quite well without any skill requirement, but it's far from uncounterable. From someone with your experience I expect to know that too.

I don't know anything about ele and I won't judge about that, but as far as mesmer goes you're being 100% forum. And I expect you to know that, too.

I agree, for builds without Inspiration, being able to tank condis with invulns is a huge deal. 

 

Instead of being a invuln, they could become blocks + a cleanse. So not everyone that wants cleanse is forced to run Inspiration.

But im not too familiar with mesmer...  you tell me if this is a good idea. 😅 

Idk just throwing around ideas at this point.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Terrorhuz.4695]

12 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

Instead of being a invuln, they could become blocks + a cleanse. To give mesmer more cleanse outside of Inspiration. 

But im not too familiar with mesmer...  you tell me if this is a good idea. 😅 

It would work, but I can't see for the life of me why would this be a good idea. I play mesmer because it's mesmer instead of some other classes; I give up some tools (cleanse, resustain, movement, long-ish cooldowns), I get to do something else (huge spike damage, unique utilities and instant casts). You remove these tools and give me the same tools as the other classes, why should I stick to mesmer? It's not mesmer anymore, it's just more of the same.

Y'all need to remember: this is not a first person shooter where everyone is more or less the same: this is a MMORPG, I expect everyone to have access to wildly different tools. Give me the same tools as everyone else, I play the same as everyone else; it's balanced, but I lose the primary reason why I'm even playing RPG to begin with. The problem with virtuoso is how it's totally unviable unless it's given the most retarted amount of defensive tools in the game; that should tell us something about the quality of the designer behind Virtuoso and Harbinger and Mechanist and the recent staff changes on Mirage and the recent Chronomancer changes, because everything I've listed comes from the same person.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Terrorhuz.4695