Class Trees

[reyre]

not the poor devs doing what they’re paid to do!

You cant be this naive or stupid. The job of any developer is not to cater to the player base, is the develop somenthing that takes into consideration plenty of factors not just players, so no they are literally not to be paid to do what you are saying the should and you kind of missed the point there, as in they are struggling with the current version of the battle system why then should they try and redo the entire thing when for the most part is well recived? You are ignoring the idea that devs would not make their job harder just to accomodate somenthing they dont want to do and will take more resources than its worth. So once more they are not paid to do dumb work, like you suggest.

As for the rest of your comment, its very contradictory, for starters if you have more fun playing other games with more appealing systems than this one, why are you not playing those games? Instead you are trying to make this game more like the others or that is what it seems. But i digress back to the rest of your comment is still very stupid, this game is not made towards optimal startegies so your whole argument enters in contradiction with your previous comment of having flexibility, you can have one or the other. if you are flexible you cant have heavely optimal strategies, if you are going for hardcore you cant have that much flexibility. This enters the "devs dont like to apply resources in a dumb fashion" notion, because they have limited time and resources to do so, in fact most games fail beacause of what you are mocking, for example see "What happun?" in youtube by matt Mcmuscles for plenty of stories and comentary about it.

And you are talking about YOUR ideal version of this game, wheras i am talking about what this game is. This game is, for better or worse, able to accomodate every palyer and in any kind of content so you can clear savage and ultimates with every class no limits, what you are saying would go against this, i dont think this is the direction they want to go. You are also ignoring the fact that in someway what you wanted in the game was implented at some point and players did not like it, thus they remove it or are against it for example SMN and SCH which follow very closely what you want and people want them separated. It seems to me that you are ignoring some ingame examples.

You are assuming people would not complain based on nothing but hearsay, that is not a proper argument nor can it be used to prove any of your points. Using your own broken argument: why not let this game be this game and let people figure out what is optimal? Somehow that seems almost ironically fitting doenst it? I could prove your point wrong using contradiction or induction or even abduction at that but i doubt that you would even believe that, so lets just leave it at that.

[AceofRains]

X

I don’t call you stupid. Why do you call me stupid? Like that right there makes me give zero care about what you have to say. Like. Learn how to have some basic respect before constructing your rebuttal.

[reyre]

I don’t call you stupid. Why do you call me stupid? Like that right there makes me give zero care about what you have to say. Like. Learn how to have some basic respect before constructing your rebuttal.

Hmm so you dont read or just read what you want. I never called you stupid, i wrote "You cant be this naive or stupid". Like. Learn how to have some basic reading skills before feeling offended, just because you have no counter point whatsoever. Like that right there tells me that and kind of proves that you dont read very well.

[Sqwall]

Hmm so you dont read or just read what you want. I never called you stupid, i wrote "You cant be this naive or stupid". Like. Learn how to have some basic reading skills before feeling offended, just because you have no counter point whatsoever. Like that right there tells me that and kind of proves that you dont read very well.

Maybe you should learn basic human emotion, and understand intelligent people read between the lines. When something is implied, it's deliberate. It's a discussion not a fight. I would expect YOU to understand the difference. That "YOU"was implied by the way for those that find it hard to read between the lines.

[reyre]

Maybe you should learn basic human emotion, and understand intelligent people read between the lines. When something is implied, it's deliberate. It's a discussion not a fight. I would expect YOU to understand the difference. That "YOU"was implied by the way for those that find it hard to read between the lines.

I am not arrogant enough to believe what an intelligent person should or should not be doing. Now, you, like that person are just assuming, thus by the very definition of the word you have no idea if you are right yet you act on your assumption intead of asking if somenthing is not clear or if you think is implied. Since this is written conversation emotion and sentiment are not properly conveyed. I know this might be hard to comprehend but i actually did not meant what that person and you think i meant, now i would like to think than an "intelligent person" would ask before acting based on assumptions, otherwise one would have a high risk of being wrong and that doesnt seem very intelligent does it?

And once more let me be deliberate and i will not have room left for interpretation or between the lines fuzzy-nes, i dont think that person or you should assume anything because you are wrong. As an example, basic human emotion is instinctual and more or less baked in our very DNA thus anger, happiness and fear fall into that category not "feeling offended because you assume you are reading between the lines" thus emotions cannot be learned.
And finally just so you know a discussion is a fight of ideas, you must be able to defend your idea and point out where the opposing idea fails. But then again are you reading between the lines here?

[Sqwall]

You cant be this naive or stupid.

This is statement. No question mark.

I don’t call you stupid. Why do you call me stupid? <--- He put a question mark. This implies that you did in fact call him stupid. Otherwise he wouldn't have questioned why you did this.