Yoshi-P: "If you want more engaging content, go play Ultimate"

[AlereRaeder]

Why are you attacking your own idea now?

And why get 11 Likes for attacking...someone agreeing...with your own idea?

Hey Ren,
You can CTRL+F and search "Lustrate" and "Druochole" and find that I didn't even mention those spells in my reply. Also, it's disingenuous to assume that I said something I did not, and delusional to reply based on your own made up fiction.... stopitgetsomehelp.jpg

I liked your idea of scholar getting a AF ability like benison, so I gave my idea to instead have it use gage to see what you thought. That would be fun to have on scholar, and not this stale gameplay loop we have as healers. I also like your idea of a "Single target or AoE" ability. We kinda have that with our damaging AoEs like Afflatus Misery doing single target while also being AoE if targets are around with diminishing potency, but not for heals.

I don't post often on the forums, so if people are liking what I contributed then it is what it is. I knew there was some heat around but I wasn't expecting you to be so insatiable; targetting anyone and everyone's opinions lol. It's all pure speculation in the end. No need to play the victim when I didn't "attack" you.

[Aword3213]

Hey Ren,
You can CTRL+F and search "Lustrate" and "Druochole" and find that I didn't even mention those spells in my reply. Also, it's disingenuous to assume that I said something I did not, and delusional to reply based on your own made up fiction.... stopitgetsomehelp.jpg
.

[WaxSw]

"I didn't mention those spells in my reply"

The reply in question:



As far as I can tell they're not attacking the druochole/lustrate as shield idea but the rest of the comment where they said that the rest of ideas weren't good

[Aword3213]

"I didn't mention those spells in my reply"

The reply in question:



As far as I can tell they're not attacking the druochole/lustrate as shield idea but the rest of the comment where they said that the rest of ideas weren't good

Ok my bad.

Thank you

[Renathras]

Hey Ren,
You can CTRL+F and search "Lustrate" and "Druochole" and find that I didn't even mention those spells in my reply.

Uh...I literally quoted you:

You:

Also, Scholar does not have any trouble in spending AF. What troubles scholar the most is using faerie gage.

Also You:

[*]Why are barrier healer's Druochole and Lustrate healing raw hp? They could give shield for the health they would've healed. Look now you can use Emergency Tactics/Pepsis in a different way.

.

Also, it's disingenuous to assume that I said something I did not,

I.
Literally.
Quoted.
You:

[*]Why are barrier healer's Druochole and Lustrate healing raw hp? They could give shield for the health they would've healed. Look now you can use Emergency Tactics/Pepsis in a different way.

Did you or did you not post that?

.

I think the issue here might be a language barrier, though...

This is deliciously ironic coming from the person whose favorite fallback argument is "everyone agrees with me" when it's convenient to you.

Note I never use Likes as a metric for that. Because Likes are a bad metric.

Also: Can you quote one time I've ever said/argued "everyone agrees with me"?

You can't, because I never have.
(14 Likes)

literally so mad

Peanut gallery heckling, ladies and gentlemen.
(14 Likes)

Note at this point I'm just pointing out likes to heckling or outright lying posts to show HOW BAD Likes as a metric is. So do keep liking those posts and proving it. I appreciate your service.

Thank you! <3

The thing is, I even quoted that IN THE POST that the person said they never mentioned it. The post where they mentioned AF abilities not being relevant to SCH's issues.

Yeh unfortunately this is the 'stars aligned' moment where Ren is right for once, Druo/Lustrate were named specifically

Sarcasm aside...thank you?

Notice something interesting about this post, though:
0 Likes

Funny how someone telling the truth - if it's something positive about me - gets 0 Likes. VERY interesting that, isn't it? In fact, it's the only one of ForsakenRoe's posts that hasn't gotten any likes.

Way to prove my point, folks. I appreciate that, even if it wasn't intentional.

I'll give it one, though.

Personally I had the idea of 'what if Indom applied a shield, and ET was changed to smash all active shields to pureheal in emergency' but they added Pepsis now so that idea's kinda goners (said idea was also thought back in late HW so it's kinda outdated anyway)

I guess I always thought Lustrate since it seems less potentially OP, and especially since we have Excog as a (better in basically every way as of ShB) alternative. But yeah, fair enough.

It is weird that the focus on the disagreement here was the Druo/Lustrate, rather than the fact Ren disagreed with the other 10 or whatever points (and Druo/Lustrate being shields was the only thing they found 'good'), why not work on coming to consensus on the other 10 things first instead of losing your marbles over the one point where there's even a slight amount of common ground (something that is vanishingly rare when it comes to Ren takes)

Because people have this weird knee-jerk impulse to argue against posters than points. So much so, if there's a poster they've got past disagreements with, they'd rather disagree with that person on instinct than see common ground with them. I think I've had all of one time this was set aside, and that was my proposed SCH changes in the Healer forum (which was a soft "more DPS buttons" proposal...)

"I didn't mention those spells in my reply"

Although the reply didn't explicitly mention them, the reply was a counter to the point. When I said I agreed with them on the Lustrate/Duro proposal, this was the reply:

Also, Scholar does not have any trouble in spending AF. What troubles scholar the most is using faerie gage.

It's fairly rational to read that as "SCH doesn't have trouble with AF mechanics, so a Lustrate change like that is unnecessary", which would be arguing against their prior point. If it was not, what was that point/paragraph saying? Was it not saying "Lustrate change isn't needed/isn't necessary/etc"? What was it saying, then?

Again, this may be a language barrier (parts of that post aren't entirely understandable "Instead of this constant copy paste back and forthing" when no copy and pasting was going on and "I close my doors."

The person didn't address any of the other ideas, only (1) AF not being an issue (which SEEMS to be addressing the Lustrate proposal) and (2) Faerie Gauge being an issue (a point I agreed with, but which hadn't been discussed by either of us prior).

So yes, they did indirectly mention Lustrate via countering a post agreeing with them on Lustrate with saying that SCH didn't have any trouble spending AF. What it seems to me is someone spoke too carelessly to contest me, and then tried to defend the careless speech, and then people who instinctually disagree with me chose to also try and defend that position.

To her credit, ForsakenRoe did not (even if grudgingly) go along with that, showing a capacity for honesty and fairmindedness that seems oddly rare from others here...

Ok my bad.

Thank you

No, you had the right of it. It's a thin defense being used now to try and eek out a "win" for some reason. Your initial take was correct.

[AlereRaeder]

(said idea was also thought back in late HW so it's kinda outdated anyway)

No, I like that idea aswell. Even moreso since you mentioned it was an idea you had in HW. It's a really outdated idea that STILL has value today is what I see.(mostly ET imo, SGE has the updated ET).

language barrier

who says this unironically. Again, being disingenuous outright. I don't want to write a book in the thread dude. I do want to close out any misunderstandings.

Although the reply didn't explicitly mention them, the reply was a counter to the point.

Most of that doesn't sound fun at all. EXCEPT Durochole/Lustrate being shields. I've said since at least ShB that SCH should have a Divine Benison-like ability that's an AF spender.

Oh I was aware we agreed, but I think there was a misunderstanding. You agreed with the Lustrate/Druo idea, you also mentioned your idea of SCH having a Divine-Benison-like AF spender. Now, the misunderstanding is that I believed you were talking about a new ability altogether (since you didn't mention what it would be) in that clause and also change Lustrate(in agreement).

Hopefully you are able to see this too.

Because people have this weird knee-jerk impulse to argue against posters than points.

I agreed with most of your ideas, not much of the ones against me since they were silly. I conceded the ideas you didn't think were fun. I was surprised you were so insatiable, but I wanted to know what you thought were better changes.

It's fairly rational to read that as ...

In that sentence there were 2 clauses:
1. Scholar does not have any trouble in spending AF.
2. What troubles scholar the most is using faerie gage.

Again, the misunderstanding. The clauses are clear and objective. They are simple claims about scholar's AF/gage usage when playing the current game. I said this to guide you in my thinking as to why I thought this "Divine-Benison-like ability" would be suited to use fairy gage instead.

... (which SEEMS to be addressing the Lustrate proposal) ...[/B]

Even you are aware of the misunderstanding. We're both agreeing on the same thing, but you keep latching on, that's where we're at. A lot of replies from you saying the same thing

So yes, they did indirectly mention Lustrate via countering ...

A reply to the thread is not a reply to an individual. In my reply to you I didn't explicitly mention those terms but you thought I did; thus, giving you a faulty pretense. I was not talking about Lustrate/Druo. But yeah, misunderstanding.

Anyways, like i said before "Instead of this constant copy paste back and forthing"(The way you talk about your ideas is verbose) and "I close my doors."(idiom) I do not want to interact with you anymore.

[Renathras]

...

This is a VERY different tone than your prior post. Okay, cool.

1) "Oh I was aware we agreed, but I think there was a misunderstanding." That's what I meant by "language barrier". This is online, so sometimes people who aren't native speakers talk (I play lots of games with people for whom English isn't their native language), and one way that sometimes manifests is some statements that are unusual in English but are them trying a literal translation of a saying in their native language. "I close my doors", for example, isn't an idiom in English as far as I'm aware. Googling "'I close my doors' meaning" doesn't come up with anything. So it had me wonder if your seeming disagreement (and calling me an "adept forum baiter") could have been due to such a language barrier. This wasn't an insult. I play games with people whose native languages are German, Polish, etc all the time who either know English as a second language or use a translator program, so when I see any tell-tale signs of that, I try to determine if that might be the issue leading to a misunderstanding that may not actually exist absent that barrier.

2) It does seem to be a misunderstanding. By "Divine-Benison-like" I did just mean "Lustrate as a pure barrier instead of heal", as you suggested. So yes, I was just agreeing with you.

3) "I was surprised you were so insatiable"? I'm...can you define what you mean by "insatiable"? Using that word in this context is...unusual. If you mean why I reacted with hostility? Because you called me an "adept forum baiter". That's a pretty strong insult and got us off on the wrong foot. Imagine if I started a post by calling you names, something I did not do with my initial reply to you.

4) "Again, the misunderstanding." Indeed. Which is why I wondered if there might be a language barrier because it did seem that we were having misunderstandings. What you call "1." is what seemed like you were disagreeing with my statement, which seemed very odd to me since I was agreeing with your prior one.

5) "Even you are aware of the misunderstanding." That's the thing - I wasn't aware. It wasn't clear if you were misunderstanding me or arguing against me. When you called me an "adept forum baiter", that seems to mean you were disagreeing with me since it seems to mean you were calling my post "bait", which is an insult/disagreeable thing. If that was not your intent, what did you mean by "adept forum baiter"? I also only replied to that post, the reply you made, and to other people defending your position/attacking me over it. There was no "keep latching on".

6) "A repy to the thread is not a reply to an individual", you directly quoted me. When you quote someone in a thread, you are replying to them.

7) "But yeah, misunderstanding." Yes, agreed.

8) "I do not want to interact with you anymore." Also agreed. I do not want to interact with you anymore.