Remove forced movement from the game.

[Leo G.4501]

Confusing. I thought I wrote one other post before this.

Anyway, *sigh* 🙃

Gotta start by putting up context, then point out why I acknowledged the point with criticism and then the criticism itself.

 

1. "It's easier to do that when you're not telling them to stop having opinions tho."

The full quote says "At the end of the day, people are always going to ask for change. You won't get them to stop by telling them, you have to convince them that there are reasons not to change everything." This was directly mostly at the following:

On 5/1/2024 at 12:33 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

It's not just "my opinion on how they can resolve it", it's literally how they can resolve it. Different classes and builds playing differently is the point of having different classes and builds. Stop trying to make everything the same.

 

Do you deny that people are going to ask for change? I'm going to just assume that you know and understand that part and say no, people WILL ask to have things changed so there's no debate there. Resolutions to problems will always have multiple solutions which I'm not going to really debate about because some solutions are better than others but that aside, I don't disagree that different classes and builds play differently. My main criticism is the last part: "Stop trying to make everything the same". And as @draxynnic.3719can likely attest, I too don't like making everything the same...it's not about what you're advocating for that I disagree with, just how you're doing it. That's why the advice I gave (take it or leave it) was you have to try and convince people instead...because change WILL happen, even changes you don't like or perceptually *wrong* changes that shouldn't happen will happen.

 

2. "Reading the other comments, it seems rather harsh to criticize someone who decided to do some independent testing"

You replied to that quote saying "I'm not sure what you're talking about here, maybe you could be more specific. Which criticism was so harsh here?" First of all, I said 'rather harsh'. Nitpicking, sure, but 'so harsh' sounds like more of a threshold of harshness was reached/passed where as 'rather harsh' mostly means 'can come off as harsh'. Secondly, this:

On 5/1/2024 at 10:25 AM, Sobx.1758 said:

Wait, what? You "made offers" for me to run tests for you? What kind of "offer" is this supposed to be? I know how it plays and what it can do, you rather clearly don't (or, currenty, didn't?). The question is: why did you even attempt discussing this without understanding what exactly you're talking about (and then try claiming I'm the one doing it "not in a good faith")?
Once again, you don't need that 70% boon duration from diviner's gear. You choosing to not use function gyro because you need/want it for rezing people as qdps in a group that will (maybe perhaps potentially who knows?) threaten you with kicks is also an interesting one to me, but I guess we need to cut those quickness sources somehow, in order to claim "it's just barely making it on the edge of being acceptable".

Comes off as pretty tactless.  And sure, no one says you have to have any tact when responding here but since you're asking me to pick apart your attitude like a dotting parent, here I am. I mean, this thread isn't just about Scrapper, it just so happens to relate to a specific build but could technically translate to any build that requires 'forced movement' in its rotation for a desired effect. Furthermore, your insistence on specific replies and rebuttals is tiresome and you should probably be more lenient went discussing things online. Not saying you can't break some noob's chops so they learn something but it's a form of communication when dealing with other adults that helps bring consensus rather than aiming for confrontational back and forths. The key is just knowing when to dial it back.

 

3. "By all means, explain what exactly you're talking about here, because it doesn't look like you're commenting on what I wrote in my posts. "

I read your posts. I quoted your posts. I clarified my replies. The point of going through this exercise isn't to belittle anyone or endlessly argue back and forth. For whatever reason, you didn't even try to understand someone you're directly replying to but rather jumped to accusations they had no idea what they were talking about OR didn't read your posts OR that what you posted couldn't be perceived as negative which should be pretty telling of how you interacted in the thread.

The crazy thing is, I'm not even disagreeing with your points. So dismiss the above as you see fit.

[draxynnic.3719]

On 5/2/2024 at 12:25 AM, Sobx.1758 said:

I repeatedly asked what's supposed to be problematic about mentioned movement skills and I didn't get anything more than what sums up to "weeell, you can't stick to the center of the boonball for that fraction of second [but I totally don't like boonball btw]".
"OP made it pretty clear how forced movement skills can be problematic", but what I'm asking for is how those exact movement skills are problematic. If his complaint is "because I can make a mistake" that's not a reason to change everything about the builds or mechanics in the game. It became increasingly clear -not just based on this thread- he wants as much of a "passive"/LI gameplay as he can get -and in that case he can already do that with other classes and builds. No need to dig into everything around just because he can miss a skill solely due to his mistakes.

Because I don't see the need to repeat points that have been made several times? I think Rocket Charge is particularly problematic, though, since it's three leaps (even if only two count for combos) AND those leaps are all enemy-directed. So it could be perfectly fine when you start the skill, then they teleport and you get yeeted into oblivion. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect players to have to memorise every boss timing just to do their basic job without yeeting themselves mid-animation.

Things like Willbender F2 I'm fine with because you have control over them. 

On 5/2/2024 at 12:25 AM, Sobx.1758 said:

Wait, what? You "made offers" for me to run tests for you? What kind of "offer" is this supposed to be? I know how it plays and what it can do, you rather clearly don't (or, currenty, didn't?). The question is: why did you even attempt discussing this without understanding what exactly you're talking about (and then try claiming I'm the one doing it "not in a good faith")?

No, I offered to run the tests, I just asked if you had any input into what build to run so I didn't go through the effort and have you say 'oh, you should have done this thing for better results.' But somehow I'm not surprised to see you misinterpreting what I said in the most hostile way possible.

On 5/2/2024 at 12:25 AM, Sobx.1758 said:

Once again, you don't need that 70% boon duration from diviner's gear. You choosing to not use function gyro because you need/want it for rezing people as qdps in a group that will (maybe perhaps potentially who knows?) threaten you with kicks is also an interesting one to me, but I guess we need to cut those quickness sources somehow, in order to claim "it's just barely making it on the edge of being acceptable".

And if I used the function gyro to make up the difference, I should be comparing to the grenade kit version of the build, because using a res to provide quickness instead is another sacrifice you're making...as I explained in the post. Damage is what can be compared quantitatively, so to be a fair comparison, both builds being tested need to be as equal as possible with everything else they bring.

And here's the thing: riflemech at 25% below is accepted because it's basically foolproof. Someone rocks up on that, you know that they're going to be doing the equivalent of about 30k on the golem facerolling the keyboard, and that's usually enough. A lot of players on higher-benchmark builds land in the same ballpark. The distinction is that riflemech doesn't have much room to improve either, while people playing more complex builds have room to improve.

The test placed qscrapper-without-rocket-charge at 20%, nearly as far down... but the rotation, while a bit easier, was still fairly close (apart from removing risk of yeeting) in complexity, and as I said, less forgiving.

Perhaps you don't like boonball gameplay, but as things are, qscrappers relying so much on Rocket Charge is problematic.

[Sobx.1758]

17 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

1. "It's easier to do that when you're not telling them to stop having opinions tho."

The full quote says "At the end of the day, people are always going to ask for change. You won't get them to stop by telling them, you have to convince them that there are reasons not to change everything." This was directly mostly at the following:

On 5/1/2024 at 6:33 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

It's not just "my opinion on how they can resolve it", it's literally how they can resolve it. Different classes and builds playing differently is the point of having different classes and builds. Stop trying to make everything the same.

So you're trying to paint the picture where "I'm telling people not to have opinions" (which, again, I did not), while saying I'd have to convince them that there are reasons not to change everything which you direct as these two sentences. As if... there was no 6 pages of discussion on the way there, many of which involved me and 2 of the same people I also directed what I said in the post you're "calling out" here? See, this is the issue with someone trying to "jump in" while disregarding what was being said before. Because you're directing what you said at these two sentences, but "these two sentences" weren't written out of the blue with nothing before that. At this point, would you somehow expect me to keep copy-pasting my previous posts just in case someone felt the sudden need to join in at the last post I wrote? I think that doesn't make much sense -and as such, neither did your attempt to tell me what you said.

17 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Do you deny that people are going to ask for change? I'm going to just assume that you know and understand that part and say no, people WILL ask to have things changed so there's no debate there. Resolutions to problems will always have multiple solutions which I'm not going to really debate about because some solutions are better than others but that aside, I don't disagree that different classes and builds play differently.

Which makes what you wrote in your initial response that much weirder, since all it did was throw out an empty accusation that had nothing to do with what I did or said in this thread.

I don't need to "deny" anything now. I told you where I have an issue with your initial post and that's all it is.

17 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

My main criticism is the last part: "Stop trying to make everything the same".

Great, except -again- that wasn't written to a random person out of the blue, without any argumentation about it before. Again, this thread has multiple pages by now and most of the discussion -at least in, lets say, second half of it- is between the same few people. All you did was take a single sentence -or two- out of xx posts and tried slapping some tiktok meme on top of it (had to google it 🤷‍♂️), as if that would make your accusation any less empty.

17 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

it's not about what you're advocating for that I disagree with, just how you're doing it. That's why the advice I gave (take it or leave it) was you have to try and convince people instead...because change WILL happen, even changes you don't like or perceptually *wrong* changes that shouldn't happen will happen.

Since we're sharing advices, mine for you is to read the thread and stop trying to take 1 sentence at xxth post as if nothing else was presented (to same people, at that, so I wasn't just gambling on whether or not they saw previous posts either) to support the stance I have. It's not meant as some backhanded remark btw, it's simply to inform you that you heavily misrepresented what was being said in this thread just because you latched onto a single sentence -or two- of xxth post and tried to draw a narrative where there was no argumentation (false), but just telling someone to not have an opinion about stuff (which is also false, even in isolation btw). Hence my reaction to that.

Is anything explained above unclear or -in your opinion- false?

 

17 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

2. "Reading the other comments, it seems rather harsh to criticize someone who decided to do some independent testing"

You replied to that quote saying "I'm not sure what you're talking about here, maybe you could be more specific. Which criticism was so harsh here?" First of all, I said 'rather harsh'. Nitpicking, sure, but 'so harsh' sounds like more of a threshold of harshness was reached/passed where as 'rather harsh' mostly means 'can come off as harsh'. Secondly, this:

Comes off as pretty tactless.  And sure, no one says you have to have any tact when responding here but since you're asking me to pick apart your attitude like a dotting parent, here I am. I mean, this thread isn't just about Scrapper, it just so happens to relate to a specific build but could technically translate to any build that requires 'forced movement' in its rotation for a desired effect.

I asked you what was "so harsh" (feel free to respond to "rather harsh" though, for me it doesn't change anything about the question here) and all you did was provide a substantial part of the post and say "[that] comes off pretty tactless". That doesn't answer anything. What was "rather harsh" -or now "pretty tactless"- there exactly? Can you literally point something out and explain that? Because for now I can quote any post on the forum, claim "it's pretty harsh" and when questioned "how is it harsh?", I'd say... "well, it's tactless". This is not a response, this is avoidance.

Nothing there was tactless. I found his mention about "offering for me to test it" simply weird, since I wouldn't be discussing something I didn't already do or at least try out. I don't need him to "offer me to go test it", when he's the one who tried to discuss something he apparently didn't try out at that point. What's so pretty harsh or tactless by pointing that out? Is this even what you meant? Unclear, you just quoted some extended fragment of a post and explained nothing. Hopefully you can provide a more accurate response this time.

Actually considering you wrote "it seems rather harsh to criticize someone who decided to do some independent testing", does it mean that the mere act of criticising what/how someone tested something is "rather harsh" because... they bothered testing something they wanted to discuss? I don't get it. I knew what I was talking about because I already did (a.k.a tested) it. At that point, it's rather harsh to criticize whatever I said in this thread, because I bothered testing it? No, really, all I can do here is keep guessing what you actually meant because your response didn't explain anything about this part.

Edited May 3 by Sobx.1758

[Sobx.1758]

16 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Because I don't see the need to repeat points that have been made several times? I think Rocket Charge is particularly problematic, though, since it's three leaps (even if only two count for combos) AND those leaps are all enemy-directed. So it could be perfectly fine when you start the skill, then they teleport and you get yeeted into oblivion. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect players to have to memorise every boss timing just to do their basic job without yeeting themselves mid-animation.

Things like Willbender F2 I'm fine with because you have control over them. 

Bosses don't usually keep randomly teleporting all over the place. At that point even using that triple leap here and there really shouldn't be a problem majority of the times, but I guess we won't agree on this, because something I'd consider as basic understanding of the encounter, you describe as "memorising every boss timing". Still, if someone wants to not use it, they rather clearly are able to do.

16 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

No, I offered to run the tests, I just asked if you had any input into what build to run so I didn't go through the effort and have you say 'oh, you should have done this thing for better results.' But somehow I'm not surprised to see you misinterpreting what I said in the most hostile way possible.

 

And if I used the function gyro to make up the difference, I should be comparing to the grenade kit version of the build, because using a res to provide quickness instead is another sacrifice you're making...as I explained in the post. Damage is what can be compared quantitatively, so to be a fair comparison, both builds being tested need to be as equal as possible with everything else they bring.

And here's the thing: riflemech at 25% below is accepted because it's basically foolproof. Someone rocks up on that, you know that they're going to be doing the equivalent of about 30k on the golem facerolling the keyboard, and that's usually enough. A lot of players on higher-benchmark builds land in the same ballpark. The distinction is that riflemech doesn't have much room to improve either, while people playing more complex builds have room to improve.

The test placed qscrapper-without-rocket-charge at 20%, nearly as far down... but the rotation, while a bit easier, was still fairly close (apart from removing risk of yeeting) in complexity, and as I said, less forgiving.

Perhaps you don't like boonball gameplay, but as things are, qscrappers relying so much on Rocket Charge is problematic.

The only "sacrifices" made here are for the sake of avoiding movement, which as far as I know was the point here. Meanwhile you still want to catch everything at the same time, minimal dps loss, maximum boon time, saving function gyro for rezes as qdps, while trying to claim the dps might get you kicked. As far as I'm concerned, either you're playing in groups that want efficiency or the ones that expect qdps to keep saving emergency rezzes. You want to save function gyro just because? Well, that's on you, because you're knowingly reducing your boon uptime and then still complain about it. Most groups you're "scared' (from the lack of better word, I don't think you're actually scared) of -because they might kick you due to dps- won't need to rely on qdps to pick them up. This is not your job as qdps and pretty sure you kept mentioning "the need to use movement skills in order to do your job" as something that was supposed to be problematic here. You want to do more? Cool, do more -by willingfully doing more, if you get what I mean.

And no, both builds don't "need to be as equal as possible", I don't even know where that came from all of the sudden. If anything, the opposite point was made there, considering it wasn't about min maxing, but just playing the spec while doing its -qdps- job. Now you're discrediting whatever you want based on additional rules you made for yourself in order to say "it just barely makes it". It doesn't just barely make it, it simply makes it.

Edited May 3 by Sobx.1758

[Leo G.4501]

23 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

So you're trying to paint the picture where "I'm telling people not to have opinions" (which, again, I did not), while saying I'd have to convince them that there are reasons not to change everything which you direct as these two sentences. As if... there was no 6 pages of discussion on the way there, many of which involved me and 2 of the same people I also directed what I said in the post you're "calling out" here? See, this is the issue with someone trying to "jump in" while disregarding what was being said before. Because you're directing what you said at these two sentences, but "these two sentences" weren't written out of the blue with nothing before that. At this point, would you somehow expect me to keep copy-pasting my previous posts just in case someone felt the sudden need to join in at the last post I wrote? I think that doesn't make much sense -and as such, neither did your attempt to tell me what you said.

I didn't just "jump in" nor "call out" your reply "out of the blue".  I've been reading the replies ever since I posted in the thread (page 2 btw).

I'd sooner accept criticism for trying to act as a "Great Value" brand referee than pushed off as someone who didn't bother reading the posts or making accusations without context.

23 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Which makes what you wrote in your initial response that much weirder, since all it did was throw out an empty accusation that had nothing to do with what I did or said in this thread.

I don't need to "deny" anything now. I told you where I have an issue with your initial post and that's all it is.

Great, except -again- that wasn't written to a random person out of the blue, without any argumentation about it before. Again, this thread has multiple pages by now and most of the discussion -at least in, lets say, second half of it- is between the same few people. All you did was take a single sentence -or two- out of xx posts and tried slapping some tiktok meme on top of it (had to google it 🤷‍♂️), as if that would make your accusation any less empty.

Since we're sharing advices, mine for you is to read the thread and stop trying to take 1 sentence at xxth post as if nothing else was presented (to same people, at that, so I wasn't just gambling on whether or not they saw previous posts either) to support the stance I have. It's not meant as some backhanded remark btw, it's simply to inform you that you heavily misrepresented what was being said in this thread just because you latched onto a single sentence -or two- of xxth post and tried to draw a narrative where there was no argumentation (false), but just telling someone to not have an opinion about stuff (which is also false, even in isolation btw). Hence my reaction to that.

Is anything explained above unclear or -in your opinion- false?

It was a YouTube meme first, not Tiktok, but I'll forgive you for that.

Like I said before, I have read the thread. I mostly read threads I reply to when I have an opinion on something I want to share. I typically read the subsequent replies to see if someone will change my opinion. I hope you have some other advice for me than that.

So far, everything you've written doesn't convince me I heavily misrepresented anything. Even in my clarification, you seem to be dramatically responding to it despite conspicuously asking for it.  I didn't want to have to spend the time to write that out (or this either) but I did to be polite because you asked with the assumption that you wanted criticism.  Is that not what you wanted?  I feel bad wasting the thread space on quibbling about nothing when the overall vibe I was trying to get across is to just chill out and come about the subject with a relative perspective that we're likely arguing personal taste of builds that are in constant flux.

23 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I asked you what was "so harsh" (feel free to respond to "rather harsh" though, for me it doesn't change anything about the question here) and all you did was provide a substantial part of the post and say "[that] comes off pretty tactless". That doesn't answer anything. What was "rather harsh" -or now "pretty tactless"- there exactly? Can you literally point something out and explain that? Because for now I can quote any post on the forum, claim "it's pretty harsh" and when questioned "how is it harsh?", I'd say... "well, it's tactless". This is not a response, this is avoidance.

Nothing there was tactless. I found his mention about "offering for me to test it" simply weird, since I wouldn't be discussing something I didn't already do or at least try out. I don't need him to "offer me to go test it", when he's the one who tried to discuss something he apparently didn't try out at that point. What's so pretty harsh or tactless by pointing that out? Is this even what you meant? Unclear, you just quoted some extended fragment of a post and explained nothing. Hopefully you can provide a more accurate response this time.

Actually considering you wrote "it seems rather harsh to criticize someone who decided to do some independent testing", does it mean that the mere act of criticising what/how someone tested something is "rather harsh" because... they bothered testing something they wanted to discuss? I don't get it. I knew what I was talking about because I already did (a.k.a tested) it. At that point, it's rather harsh to criticize whatever I said in this thread, because I bothered testing it? No, really, all I can do here is keep guessing what you actually meant because your response didn't explain anything about this part.

 

It's called a *clarification*. Do I need to define that for you too? I was *clarifying* that I wasn't saying you've crossed a threshold of harshness that has created some violation but rather it's just a perceived tone from an unbiased reader of being unnecessarily harsh.  I even went on to describe busting someone's chops isn't outside of the realm of necessity. But being the Great Value brand ref, I just think you're pushing too hard and if there's one thing most people are backhandedly annoyed by it's try-hards...at least I am.

As for what was rather harsh? Everything I quoted.  What was pretty tactless?  This:

"I know how it plays and what it can do, you rather clearly don't (or, currenty, didn't?)."

and this:

"The question is: why did you even attempt discussing this without understanding what exactly you're talking about (and then try claiming I'm the one doing it "not in a good faith")?"

As something I've learned from various bouts of moderation, you could have posted with these 2 sentences deleted and it'd have come off as a tiny bit less harsh and would come off moreso as stern and info based vs debate bro provocation.  And as for the part about asking for you to do tests, I'll write that off as a miscommunication but better to clarify with the person you're talking with if that's what they're asking for rather than just assume they want you to go out of your way, spend your effect pulling up builds and gear and you go through rounds and rounds of rotations.  

[Sobx.1758]

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

I didn't just "jump in" nor "call out" your reply "out of the blue". 

Well, for now that's exactly how it looks like and I already explained above why. If anything about that explanation is unclear or unfair in your opinion, feel free to question what I said.

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Like I said before, I have read the thread. I mostly read threads I reply to when I have an opinion on something I want to share. I typically read the subsequent replies to see if someone will change my opinion. I hope you have some other advice for me than that.

So far, everything you've written doesn't convince me I heavily misrepresented anything.

So far, you didn't address anything I said. Hard to discuss when all you do is not respond the short/straightforwad questioned I posed, but just plan to keep going with another rather blank  "not convinced!". As you can hopfully easly guess, you're not convincing me of anything here either.

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Even in my clarification, you seem to be dramatically responding to it despite conspicuously asking for it.  I didn't want to have to spend the time to write that out (or this either) but I did to be polite because you asked with the assumption that you wanted criticism.  Is that not what you wanted? 

If that's what you actually think then I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt and simply note that you didn't read it correctly then. Nothing in my response was "dramatic". I questioned specific parts of what you said about me -or my post- there and yet, you simply failed to address those questions, but instead -for one- started asking me if I... disagree with things I didn't question? It's like you literally didn't want to answer what I asked.

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

I feel bad wasting the thread space on quibbling about nothing when the overall vibe I was trying to get across is to just chill out and come about the subject with a relative perspective that we're likely arguing personal taste of builds that are in constant flux.

So do I. But I think most of all it's too bad that you feel bad now instead of simply, you know, posting on topic, which -until your post with false accusations directed at me- at least was still happening in this thread, despite differences in the stances.

 

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

It's called a *clarification*. Do I need to define that for you too? I was *clarifying* that I wasn't saying you've crossed a threshold of harshness that has created some violation but rather it's just a perceived tone from an unbiased reader of being unnecessarily harsh.  I even went on to describe busting someone's chops isn't outside of the realm of necessity. But being the Great Value brand ref, I just think you're pushing too hard and if there's one thing most people are backhandedly annoyed by it's try-hards...at least I am.

Consdering your repeated attempts at these weak personal jabs since the very first post in this comment chain -in place of any actual specific feedback, whether on-topic or about what I questioned about your accusations towards me- I'd say you seem to be overestimating your "lack of bias". Although if it makes you feel better to see yourself as such then you do you. Wouldn't say the thread is doing better now though.

Up until this point you still didn't address anything on-topic nor answer the initial questions with anything specific. This is not "clarification", this is carefully circling around the questions. For whatever wierd reason you're doing it.

1 hour ago, Leo G.4501 said:

As for what was rather harsh? Everything I quoted.  What was pretty tactless?  This:

"I know how it plays and what it can do, you rather clearly don't (or, currenty, didn't?)."

and this:

"The question is: why did you even attempt discussing this without understanding what exactly you're talking about (and then try claiming I'm the one doing it "not in a good faith")?"

As something I've learned from various bouts of moderation, you could have posted with these 2 sentences deleted and it'd have come off as a tiny bit less harsh and would come off moreso as stern and info based vs debate bro provocation.  And as for the part about asking for you to do tests, I'll write that off as a miscommunication but better to clarify with the person you're talking with if that's what they're asking for rather than just assume they want you to go out of your way, spend your effect pulling up builds and gear and you go through rounds and rounds of rotations. 

Pointing out that I know what I was talking about since I don't tend to comment on what I didn't play isn't harsh in any way. Neither is pointing out that he was the one in need of "testing it" if he didn't do it yet. I don't see how any of this is supposed to be harsh ("rather harsh"!).
As for questioning why he was attempting discussing what he didn't even try out yet (for days or weeks, at that) -it doesn't make sense to me for anyone to try and claim something doesn't work (or isn't enough) when they wouldn't even try making it work ingame first. Pointing it out is normal and truthful, I don't see that [rather] harshness here.

As for the last part -yes, it appears it was a miscommunication.

 

Now if you'd like to say something on-topic, I think that would be better. If you want to keep exchanging these walls of text about me, my pm is open, although at this pace, I'm not sure this is nearing any resolution 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited May 4 by Sobx.1758

[Leo G.4501]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

If that's what you actually think then I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt and simply note that you didn't read it correctly then. Nothing in my response was "dramatic". I questioned specific parts of what you said about me -or my post- there and yet, you simply failed to address those questions, but instead -for one- started asking me if I... disagree with things I didn't question? It's like you literally didn't want to answer what I asked.

So do I. But I think most of all it's too bad that you feel bad now instead of simply, you know, posting on topic, which -until your post with false accusations directed at me- at least was still happening in this thread, despite differences in the stances.

Such a generous benefit of the doubt lol 🙃

I answered your questions. I clarified my points. I pointed to your specific statement that you asked. Overall, it never was a big deal, you just made it a big deal.  Like I said, you've become tiresome to discuss with because you keep asking for things you don't want and then complaining when you get them.  You wanted to know why I made the statements that I gave. I did and then you wanted specific direction for why I would make said statements so I gave them and now you deny I did any of that and still miss the context. I don't feel bad for you, I feel bad for people who would waste their time with this discussion at this point, specifically discussing it with you.

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Consdering your repeated attempts at these weak personal jabs since the very first post in this comment chain -in place of any actual specific feedback, whether on-topic or about what I questioned about your accusations towards me- I'd say you seem to be overestimating your "lack of bias". Although if it makes you feel better to see yourself as such then you do you. Wouldn't say the thread is doing better now though.

You confuse accusations with criticism. 🤷‍♂️💁‍♂️🤷‍♀️

Like I said before: I gave you some feedback, you got confused, I said it wasn't that serious, you demanded clarification, I clarified, you complain. That's the loop here.

So you can keep your attention span limit met, the tl;dr: just mind your manners with telling people they don't know stuff or they did the bare minimum like reading posts. Nobody owes you anything, people can report your posts for even the hint of being rude and if you want to avoid frustration, try to consider how someone else will interpret your posts. 🤷‍♂️

But do what you want. I don't care. Smell ya later 🙃

[Sobx.1758]

Yeah, no. What you did was not criticism, it was -and still is- empty accusation: claiming I somehow told people to "stop having opinions" (which clearly at no point I did) and that I shouldn't criticize someone "because it's rather harsh, when they finally decided to try out the build they attempted to discuss for days/weeks by now". If they want to make a claim it wouldn't work, they should have tried it out -it's not harsh to point that out, it's a simple fact which provides the base of any build-related discussion.
Let me know when you'll be intersted in discussing anything on-topic without making up these weird accusations that I said or did something I did not. That was and remains being the point about what you said in your initial post.

Edited May 5 by Sobx.1758

[draxynnic.3719]

On 5/4/2024 at 7:44 AM, Sobx.1758 said:

Bosses don't usually keep randomly teleporting all over the place. At that point even using that triple leap here and there really shouldn't be a problem majority of the times, but I guess we won't agree on this, because something I'd consider as basic understanding of the encounter, you describe as "memorising every boss timing". Still, if someone wants to not use it, they rather clearly are able to do.

The only "sacrifices" made here are for the sake of avoiding movement, which as far as I know was the point here. Meanwhile you still want to catch everything at the same time, minimal dps loss, maximum boon time, saving function gyro for rezes as qdps, while trying to claim the dps might get you kicked. As far as I'm concerned, either you're playing in groups that want efficiency or the ones that expect qdps to keep saving emergency rezzes. You want to save function gyro just because? Well, that's on you, because you're knowingly reducing your boon uptime and then still complain about it. Most groups you're "scared' (from the lack of better word, I don't think you're actually scared) of -because they might kick you due to dps- won't need to rely on qdps to pick them up. This is not your job as qdps and pretty sure you kept mentioning "the need to use movement skills in order to do your job" as something that was supposed to be problematic here. You want to do more? Cool, do more -by willingfully doing more, if you get what I mean.

And no, both builds don't "need to be as equal as possible", I don't even know where that came from all of the sudden. If anything, the opposite point was made there, considering it wasn't about min maxing, but just playing the spec while doing its -qdps- job. Now you're discrediting whatever you want based on additional rules you made for yourself in order to say "it just barely makes it". It doesn't just barely make it, it simply makes it.

Any fair test requires comparing like for like, as much as possible. Or in scientific parlance, keeping the variables constant apart from the ones your testing.

I, personally, have little interest in expending a lot of effort in practicing grenade kit qscrapper, which is the highest DPS version. So I went with mukluk's version which accepted some loss of DPS in exchange for retaining the res capacity. Which meant that to be a fair test, the 'no Rocket Charge' test also had to at least try to retain that capacity in order to be a like-for-like test.

You seem to be obsessed with the 'but you might get kicked!' thing, but there are a lot of reasons why a player might want to maximise their own efficiency without that fear. Maybe it's personal pride and not wanting to let the team down in general. Maybe they're one of the more experienced players in a training run, so they know they might have to make up for the trainees underperforming. Maybe there's a DPS check and the group dynamic is such that, for whatever reason, they need every bit they can get. Maybe they just want that extra bit of insurance against an enrage check, or for the fight to be a little shorter to give everyone less opportunity to make mistakes. Damage MATTERS. If it didn't, everyone would run two healers per subsquad. Giving up 20% of your damage isn't free.

You seem to be arguing that good damage is only needed in the sweatiest groups, but this isn't true! Part of playing with less experienced groups is that dips in performance might not lead to getting kicked, but they can and do lead to wipes! If half the group is down and you're trying to beat the boss with the people who are left before the timer runs out, it'd feel pretty bad if the group wipes when the boss is at 1% and you know you didn't bring the best damage you could, even if the rest of the group isn't looking at you at the reason for the wipe.

The qscrappers I'm speaking on behalf of aren't in this forum, but every one has complained about the switch to granting quickness through finishers since it happened.

[Sobx.1758]

16 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Any fair test requires comparing like for like, as much as possible. Or in scientific parlance, keeping the variables constant apart from the ones your testing.

I, personally, have little interest in expending a lot of effort in practicing grenade kit qscrapper, which is the highest DPS version. So I went with mukluk's version which accepted some loss of DPS in exchange for retaining the res capacity. Which meant that to be a fair test, the 'no Rocket Charge' test also had to at least try to retain that capacity in order to be a like-for-like test.

No, the complaint -your complaint- was that you wanted it to be possible to do the job (qdps) without using movement skills. I disagree with that in the first place because there isn't much logic behind "requiring no movement skills" rule in the first place, but still I did put that aside and informed you that it is possible to do it without movement skills. So you subsequently added some more "rules" in order to be able to claim "it just barely makes it because you don't want to keep using x skill/s". Your role as qdps isn't rezing though and the more you think it is, the less the squad will "maybe boot you for that dps".

16 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

You seem to be obsessed with the 'but you might get kicked!' thing

You're the one who kept using it -and still do- as an argument. Am I supposed to not address it or it will mean I'm "obsessed" by it? It doesn't help that it really isn't a good argument, but more of a cop out relying on "whatever hypothetical group you want to mention at that particular moment to dismiss whatever you want" (and you're now responsible for rezing players too! btw, because the dps restriction you initially set wasn't enough by itself -and still isn't, except now it's conveniently "just barely! making it, so it might as well not make it").

16 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

but there are a lot of reasons why a player might want to maximise their own efficiency

If you, for whatever "pride or not" reason, want to keep your buttons unpressed because you think you should do more then it's on you. If you want to put yourself in the role of someone who does more, deal with having to do more. All that "pride", "maybe not wanting to let down the team" and whatnot justification melts, considering the apparent dealbreaker for that "not letting the team down" or "higher efficiency" comes in the form of refusing to press the 3 key from time to time.
The fact you think "you need to memorize the exact pattern of the encounter [but you shouldn't have to because you said so] or you'll be constantly thrown into the abyss by the movement skill" and now you're arguing about "maximizing efficiency" is another cherry on top of your rather convoluted argumentation in this thread. You basically keep shuffling the player and group types left and right in order to dismiss whatever you want to dismiss at any given moment. Either you want efficiency or you fail at understanding the basic concepts of the encounters you play. Either you need to never touch function gyro because as qdps you're responsible for picking up your group or you're playing with groups who kick you for a bit lower dps.

16 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Giving up 20% of your damage isn't free.

Nobody said it's "free". It was already noted that if your group is failing dps checks, it's not because of qdps lacking in damage, but because your dps players are the ones who should be doing more.

16 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

You seem to be arguing that good damage is only needed in the sweatiest groups

Not really. If anything, you seem to be arguing that you should be carrying your group as qdps, but at the same time those groups you need to keep carrying are somehow demanding x dps from you. If you want to carry a group then maybe you can try doing it in a different role and -more importantly- in that case... you don't have much room to complain about "having to press whatever key". Either you know what you're doing or you keep throwing yourself into abyss by the mere thought of using a mobility skill, which for the most part isn't even really a problematic one.

Edited May 10 by Sobx.1758

[draxynnic.3719]

9 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

No, the complaint -your complaint- was that you wanted it to be possible to do the job (qdps) without using movement skills. I disagree with that in the first place because there isn't much logic behind "requiring no movement skills" rule in the first place, but still I did put that aside and informed you that it is possible to do it without movement skills. So you subsequently added some more "rules" in order to be able to claim "it just barely makes it because you don't want to keep using x skill/s". Your role as qdps isn't rezing though and the more you think it is, the less the squad will "maybe boot you for that dps".

And the point is that your proposed solution of "just do it without movement skills" does not work - because at the point you do that, your overall performance, whether that's measured in damage or in sacrificing non-damage factors like res potential, has dropped far enough that you really should just be playing some other qdps.

You can complain about my methodology, but comparing a build that has a res available versus one that has to use that on cooldown, and then comparing just the damage numbers, would not be a fair test because the presence of the res would then be a sacrifice that is not measured in the damage numbers. So a test has to be either two builds that both have that res available, or two builds that don't. I chose the ones that did simply for my own convenience because, again, frell grenade kit rotations.

But at the bottom line, your counter-suggestion of "just don't use movement skills" does not work because of how much functionality you lose in doing so. Whether the functionality is in damage (dropped by 20%), quickness uptime (much less comfortable) or res potential does not really matter. One could get less of a damage drop by sacrificing the res potential and using less boon duration, to be sure, but at that point you're giving up the less numerically measurable benefit of the res, still doing less damage, and your quickness application is still barely holding up. At that point, you'd be much better off to your group by switching to... well, I'm told even quickness deadeye is back to performing okay, so basically anything other than quickcata would be better.

[Sobx.1758]

10 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

And the point is that your proposed solution of "just do it without movement skills" does not work

That's false, it does work. You suddenly refused to use one of your other skills to make it "just barely work" and now you turn it into "not working". This is so weird. And, again, false.

10 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

really should just be playing some other qdps.

Not only that's incorrect because you still can use whatever you want, but also that was always the option if that makes no difference for you. Which was also repeatedly pointed out. You thought it wouldn't work (because you didn't know what you were talking about), but it did -and does- work, so you added more limitations for yourself in attempt to make it "just barely work". Now you've turned your own "barely work" into "doesn't work" 🙃 Like, wow.

10 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

But at the bottom line, your counter-suggestion of "just don't use movement skills" does not work because of how much functionality you lose in doing so

That's evidently false, you wanted to "do qdps job" on scrapper and that's exactly what you can do without using movement skills. It's your problem that you forgot what you were -incorrectly- arguing for/against, so now you need to keep altering what it means to "do qdps job".
The actual bottom line here is: play what you like, these particular movement skills still aren't an issue. If you don't want to press the keys and yet you claim you need to keep carrying your group including actively rezing them all the time (while also they're the ones that would kick you for lacking damage, somehow) then at this point it's clear what you're hopelessly doing here. You surely don't keep altering what you said because you think you're correct. 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited May 11 by Sobx.1758

[draxynnic.3719]

On 5/11/2024 at 7:58 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

That's false, it does work. You suddenly refused to use one of your other skills to make it "just barely work" and now you turn it into "not working". This is so weird. And, again, false.

No, it doesn't work, because you just don't do it without making sacrifices. And, btw, sacrificing non-damage functionality is still a sacrifice.

On 5/11/2024 at 7:58 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

Not only that's incorrect because you still can use whatever you want, but also that was always the option if that makes no difference for you. Which was also repeatedly pointed out. You thought it wouldn't work (because you didn't know what you were talking about), but it did -and does- work, so you added more limitations for yourself in attempt to make it "just barely work". Now you've turned your own "barely work" into "doesn't work" 🙃 Like, wow.

Actually, I'd gone in with an open mind. I'd also note that I still hold by "barely works", it's your claim of "just don't use movement skills" that doesn't work because you're saying that like it isn't a significant drop in functionality. 

As I said above, sacrificing non-damage functionality is still a sacrifice. It's one that's hard to quantify as the value will change depending on circumstances, which is why I decided to test both on the basis that if the build that uses movement skills is holding it in reserve, the build that doesn't use movement skills should also hold it in reserve - as that means they can be compared based on functionality that can be quantised (damage and boon uptime). Now, a better test would be to compare the SCs build that is designed for maximum damage against a build that can manage uptime without using Rocket Charge, since that would eliminate you quibbling over whether the like-for-like comparison actually applies, but here's a news flash for you:

I do not bring quickscrapper to PvE instanced content.

I bring quickbrand, quickchrono, if I'm feeling lazy, quickherald (now that build has a ridiculous effectiveness-to-difficulty ratio). I wasn't interested in trying to learn two different rotations for a build I don't play just because you're going to quibble semantics over making a like-for-like comparison. Using the same rotation, apart from not using Rocket Charge, was to keep the results consistent, and I think it's reasonable that if one of the strengths of the build when using Rocket Charge is to keep function gyro in reserve, the rotation without Rocket Charge should also keep it in reserve, otherwise that's a capability that's being sacrificed that can't be quantised. However, every person I've talked to who does has complained about the same issues that have been raised in this thread. It's just that they don't participate in forum discussions because they regard it as a cesspool, probably in part because of people who are more interested in directing snide comments at a strawman then they are at actually trying to grasp someone else's point of view.

As evidenced in your case in that you're still banging on about the "but you might get kicked!" argument when I've already listed a number of situations where that might not be a concern but where you still wouldn't want to be playing at a 20% handicap. Of course, there might also be situations where that is a reasonable concern. Group dynamics do vary, after all. Sometimes, you're looking to carry, you recognise and accept that you're carrying, but because you're carrying, you need to be doing the best you can for the group because you know the trainees aren't going to be contributing as much. And sometimes you're trying to progress something like HTCM and you can't afford to have anybody who's not doing the very best they can. 

[Gaiawolf.8261]

1 hour ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

As I said above, sacrificing non-damage functionality is still a sacrifice. It's one that's hard to quantify as the value will change depending on circumstances, which is why I decided to test both on the basis that if the build that uses movement skills is holding it in reserve, the build that doesn't use movement skills should also hold it in reserve - as that means they can be compared based on functionality that can be quantised (damage and boon uptime).

I expect a competent static party or one that has a rather good heal druid, scourge, or similar build might be able to get by without keeping a function gyro for rezzes. Most other parties are going to hurt if the quickscrapper can't jump in there on demand. Not worth the DPS loss or loss in... um, function? (LOL) IMO, but someone out there might like it anyway. 😅

[Ascency.3580]

im sorry, but no. overll its nothing more then skill issue. the game is designed in a way that promotes certain builds in certain encounters, and punishes others. using a build with a lot of forced movement in a fight where it might get u killed is pretty much the same as going full power squad against VG. u have to adjust the group, not complain that ud rather have red boss not be vulnerable to condi dmg only. every single build in the game has strenghths and weaknesses when it comes to its efficiency in boss encounters. rifle deadeye is completely usesless in pve for the most part, but its s tier for certain mechanics at qadim fights as an example. i personally do not like some fights becouse of weird boss hitboxes that, while not cousing me to jump off the arena, make me loose a lot of dps, tho im not complaining cos id rather adapt, then complain about every boss not being the same training dummy scenario.

edit: also experience, knowledge about the fights and knowing when not to use certain skills is part of the skill issue im talking about. ye chrono cs can get u killed, but using it randomly just as sabatha yells "burn burn" is asking for it.

Edited Tuesday at 09:08 PM by Ascency.3580

[Sobx.1758]

21 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

No, it doesn't work, because you just don't do it without making sacrifices. And, btw, sacrificing non-damage functionality is still a sacrifice.

It does work, nobody -including me- said anything about "not making sacrificing", so not sure why -at one point- you started repeating that tired mantra as if it changes anything about what was being said in this thread.

21 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Actually, I'd gone in with an open mind. I'd also note that I still hold by "barely works", it's your claim of "just don't use movement skills" that doesn't work because you're saying that like it isn't a significant drop in functionality. 

At this point it just looks like you don't remember what you were arguing about. It's either that or you're intentionally moving goalposts, like already mentioned above, first "it was not possible, but maybe with full diviners" then -after you made up additional rules after trying it out, apparently for the first time- it was "barely possible" (because you didn't want to use x skill), which in your subsequent posts turned into "it doesn't work" again, for some unknown reason.

You're now saying my claim was "just don't use movement skills" and that -somehow- I was saying that like it isn't a drop in functionality. Meanwhile what I wrote is this:

On 4/13/2024 at 12:19 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

No, spamming movement abilities on qscrapper is not required for it to work.

I also made the point the reason some people here think it won't work is because they're blindly following meta builds and are focused on min-maxing. You claimed you understand that and it's totally not about that.

Here you're doubting it can work while claiming you'd need to go "full diviners" (still false, like not even close to being true):

On 4/16/2024 at 8:12 AM, draxynnic.3719 said:

It isn't? I mean, I guess you could go full Diviner and fill your build with the shortest-recharge blast finishers you can find, but since the DPS numbers are going to be balanced based on what the Snowcrows build is capable of doing, if you're making big sacrifices to your DPS potential, your DPS is naturally going to tank.

And the Snowcrows build gets the lion's share of its quickness by using Rocket Charge.

Here's the post where you quote my reminder about what I actually wrote and where you subsequently turn towards your get-out-of-jail free card "but people can kick you for dps!":

Now you're applying whatever new limitations you suddenly want to apply and claim I said things I clearly did not, just to fit your narrative of "but it's sacrificing something, so it doesn't count!". I'd repeat: "hey, maybe you didn't read my previous posts and missed crucial points I made speciifcally about that", but I already did (in the post linked directly above) and you claimed you're aware of those, so... What are you even trying to talk about here now?

21 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

but here's a news flash for you:

I do not bring quickscrapper to PvE instanced content.

It really is irrelevant: I don't exactly care "what you're bringing", I care what you claimed in this thread (spoiler alert: it WAS clear you did not play what you were trying to discuss here). And what you wrote was -and is- simply false. "news flash", I know because I played around with the builds before making my claims, clearly as opposed to you, where you apparently argued for weeks before even bothering taking it to the training golem, after which you started adding new rules and altering what was being said in this thread.

21 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Sometimes, you're looking to carry, you recognise and accept that you're carrying, but because you're carrying, you need to be doing the best you can for the group because you know the trainees aren't going to be contributing as much. And sometimes you're trying to progress something like HTCM and you can't afford to have anybody who's not doing the very best they can. 

And I already commented on that. The fact that you're trying to mention "carrying others" (as qpds?) or "trying to progress something like HTCM and you can't afford to have anybody who's not doing the very best they can", while at the same time complaining about the use of a skill because it involves movement makes no sense. If you're in need of picking something that plays differently, you pick something that plays differently. Almost as if that's also a repeated point here.

 

19 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

I expect a competent static party or one that has a rather good heal druid, scourge, or similar build might be able to get by without keeping a function gyro for rezzes. Most other parties are going to hurt if the quickscrapper can't jump in there on demand.

Meanwhile I'm writing from perspective of pugging raids/strikes/cms. Not from perspective of statics or caring about whatever specific rather good heal gruids/scourges being present. Keeping rez skills on full alert is not qdps job (nor is having active rez skills something you need in groups at all).

 

Now with that being said, movement skills -especially the ones discussed here in particular- aren't an issue. Just because "you can make a mistake" doesn't mean it's a reason for any sweeping change.

Edited May 13 by Sobx.1758

[Gaiawolf.8261]

6 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

It does work, nobody -including me- said anything about "not making sacrificing", so not sure why -at one point- you started repeating that tired mantra as if it changes anything about what was being said in this thread.

At this point it just looks like you don't remember what you were arguing about. It's either that or you're intentionally moving goalposts, like already mentioned above, first "it was not possible, but maybe with full diviners" then -after you made up additional rules after trying it out, apparently for the first time- it was "barely possible" (because you didn't want to use x skill), which in your subsequent posts turned into "it doesn't work" again, for some unknown reason.

You're now saying my claim was "just don't use movement skills" and that -somehow- I was saying that like it isn't a drop in functionality. Meanwhile what I wrote is this:

I also made the point the reason some people here think it won't work is because they're blindly following meta builds and are focused on min-maxing. You claimed you understand that and it's totally not about that.

Here you're doubting it can work while claiming you'd need to go "full diviners" (still false, like not even close to being true):

Here's the post where you quote my reminder about what I actually wrote and where you subsequently turn towards your get-out-of-jail free card "but people can kick you for dps!":

Now you're applying whatever new limitations you suddenly want to apply and claim I said things I clearly did not, just to fit your narrative of "but it's sacrificing something, so it doesn't count!". I'd repeat: "hey, maybe you didn't read my previous posts and missed crucial points I made speciifcally about that", but I already did (in the post linked directly above) and you claimed you're aware of those, so... What are you even trying to talk about here now?

It really is irrelevant: I don't exactly care "what you're bringing", I care what you claimed in this thread (spoiler alert: it WAS clear you did not play what you were trying to discuss here). And what you wrote was -and is- simply false. "news flash", I know because I played around with the builds before making my claims, clearly as opposed to you, where you apparently argued for weeks before even bothering taking it to the training golem, after which you started adding new rules and altering what was being said in this thread.

 

Everything I wrote in this thread is from perspective of pugging raids/strikes/cms. Not from perspective of statics or caring about whatever specific rather good heal gruids/scourges being present. Keeping rez skills on full alert is not qdps job (nor is having active rez skills something you need in groups at all).

 

Now with that being said, movement skills -especially the ones discussed here in particular- aren't an issue. Just because "you can make a mistake" doesn't mean it's a reason for any sweeping change.

Sure it's not their primary role, but it's value-added utility, just like aegis and stab come with FB. No one is going to care or even notice when things are going well, but if the healer and group start to struggle, they can come in clutch.

A scrapper of any role that can't throw down his gyro because he made build decisions that keep it off CD might feel that. Hence it didn't seem worth it to me. I've saved my group more than once with Unbroken Lines or Stalwart Stand as a CFB or QFB. And even Signet of Mercy when we didn't have a rezzer. It happens. 

[Obtena.7952]

16 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Sure it's not their primary role, but it's value-added utility, just like aegis and stab come with FB. No one is going to care or even notice when things are going well, but if the healer and group start to struggle, they can come in clutch.

A scrapper of any role that can't throw down his gyro because he made build decisions that keep it off CD might feel that. Hence it didn't seem worth it to me. I've saved my group more than once with Unbroken Lines or Stalwart Stand as a CFB or QFB. And even Signet of Mercy when we didn't have a rezzer. It happens. 

Being added-value utility is pretty irrelevant here. Put another way; It's unlikely this specific scenario of gyro having added-value utility will in ANY WAY influence a change to the game to remove movement skills because people don't like them. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:39 PM by Obtena.7952

[Gaiawolf.8261]

40 minutes ago, Obtena.7952 said:

Being added-value utility is pretty irrelevant here. Put another way; It's unlikely this specific scenario of gyro having added-value utility will in ANY WAY influence a change to the game to remove movement skills because people don't like them. 

Oh for sure. We're in complete agreement there. I'm long past thinking anything we say here will affect how the devs design the game. I'm past addressing the OP too; done that, been there. I was just offering an opinion on the specific build @draxynnic.3719 was testing at this point. 

[Sobx.1758]

17 hours ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Sure it's not their primary role, but it's value-added utility, just like aegis and stab come with FB. No one is going to care or even notice when things are going well, but if the healer and group start to struggle, they can come in clutch.

A scrapper of any role that can't throw down his gyro because he made build decisions that keep it off CD might feel that. Hence it didn't seem worth it to me. I've saved my group more than once with Unbroken Lines or Stalwart Stand as a CFB or QFB. And even Signet of Mercy when we didn't have a rezzer. It happens. 

If he wants to put himself in the position of "that carry!", complaining about hammer 3 is a bit silly. If he wants to "carry" anyone, doing it on qdps (even moreso while refusing to use x skills) isn't really the way to do it. He can always take more responsibility (as far as I'm concerned) and play a healer. The notion of refusing to press keys for no much reason, but still keeping the expectation of being able to do everything doesn't make much sense.

27 minutes ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

Oh for sure. We're in complete agreement there. I'm long past thinking anything we say here will affect how the devs design the game. I'm past addressing the OP too; done that, been there. I was just offering an opinion on the specific build @draxynnic.3719 was testing at this point. 

And, again, the discussed claim/counter-claim was about "being able to do its [qdps] job", not "carrying a squad as qdps by keeping your function gyro unused because now your role is rezing people with an active skill". Whose fault is it that he doesn't remember what he's arguing about?
After he finally bothered trying out what he was trying to discuss, it "barely makes it because he wants to keep function gyro" and that's supposed to mean... it doesn't work (which is what he's now apparently set on repeating)? That's a good one. 🤦‍♂️

Edited Tuesday at 02:50 PM by Sobx.1758

[Gaiawolf.8261]

14 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

If he wants to put himself in the position of "that carry!", complaining about hammer 3 is a bit silly. If he wants to "carry" anyone, doing it on qdps (even moreso while refusing to use x skills) isn't really the way to do it. He can always take more responsibility (as far as I'm concerned) and play a healer. The notion of refusing to press keys for no much reason, but still keeping the expectation of being able to do everything doesn't make much sense.

And, again, the discussed claim/counter-claim was about "being able to do its [qdps] job", not "carrying a squad as qdps by keeping your function gyro unused because now your role is rezing people with an active skill". Whose fault is it that he doesn't remember what he's arguing about?
After he finally bothered trying out what he was trying to discuss, it "barely makes it because he wants to keep function gyro" and that's supposed to mean... it doesn't work (which is what he's now apparently set on repeating)? That's a good one. 🤦‍♂️

That's an interesting take. I read it less as "forgetting a past point" and more as progressing the conversation toward a possible alternative. But I'm not him, so I can't say for sure. 🤷

Although I seem to remember you accusing me of pivoting when it later came to light I did no such thing, so ... 😆

[Sobx.1758]

4 minutes ago, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

That's an interesting take. I read it less as "forgetting a past point" and more as progressing the conversation toward a possible alternative. But I'm not him, so I can't say for sure. 🤷

That's an interesting take, considering he keeps repeating I'm wrong where I'm evidently not and he just kept adding restrictions to change the claim he's arguing about.

If it was what you're saying -"progressing the conversation"- he wouldn't be repeating "you're wrong", but instead "you were correct, but I want the build to be directly comparable to the meta one". Or, you know, at least something along that line. Clearly that's not what he's doing, so maybe you should go back to the posts I linked above too, to reming yourself what claims were actually made here. Otherwise your "insight into what's discussed" doesn't provide much of an insight.

Edited Tuesday at 03:07 PM by Sobx.1758

[Gaiawolf.8261]

8 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

That's an interesting take, considering he keeps repeating I'm wrong where I'm evidently not and he just kept adding restrictions to change the claim he's arguing about.

If it was what you're saying -"progressing the conversation"- he wouldn't be repeating "you're wrong", but instead "you were correct, but I want the build to be directly comparable to the meta one". Or, you know, at least something along that line. Clearly that's not what he's doing, so maybe you should go back to the posts I linked above too, to reming yourself what claims were actually made here. Otherwise your "insight into what's discussed" doesn't provide much of an insight.

A conversation can progress even without a clear agreement on who's right or wrong. It's not often you can convince someone they're wrong on internet forums anyway. 😉

[Sobx.1758]

On 5/14/2024 at 5:16 PM, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

A conversation can progress even without a clear agreement on who's right or wrong.

In that case, again, him claiming I was wrong is... simply wrong. Hope it's clear now.

Also your repeated use of "progressing conversation" is an interesting nickname for what normally is known as "moving goalposts". 😉 

Edited Wednesday at 08:44 PM by Sobx.1758

[Gaiawolf.8261]

On 5/14/2024 at 11:19 AM, Sobx.1758 said:

Also your repeated use of "progressing conversation" is an interesting nickname for what normally is known as "moving goalposts". 😉 

LOL, careful with such language. There are exceptions, so no accusation against you, but people that normally use negatively charged phrases like "moving goalposts," "strawman argument," or "ad hominem" with strangers on forums are likely toxic internet trolls who engage in combative arguments and want to win them at all costs, instead of keeping an open mind in civil, collaborative discussions. Except there's a problem with that. There is no winning on internet forums. 😄

Or maybe I'm just too old to waste my time with such debates and have grown to find them useless and childish. Unless there's money to be made. Then it's business. 😉

Edited Thursday at 05:19 AM by Gaiawolf.8261