Fine, Bloodwhetting is too OP

[CKNovel]

I mean if 14 let you pull the entire dungeon then WAR could easily tank the entire dungeon because BW scales with enemies

Go to Deep dungeon and do similar pulls, then share us your experience.

This is completely superfluous to the argument I'm making, but yes, given the fact that people didn't quit WoW en masse after nerfs to all tanks that affected them in all content it would then stand to reason people won't quit this game en masse either if you nerf one ability on one job in one very specific content only.

"Superfluous" is a big word.
Did Poland had an exodus during the Vietnam war? No. Therefore there would be no exodus during World War II.
Did the planet had global warming before the industrialization era? Yes. Therefore the current global warming isn't caused by human activity.
It's basically your argument, they're completely unrelated events on completely different scales and only share the nature of War. That's an apple and orange fallacy.

But you do your absolute best to ignore that big flaws in your argument because you know it makes it lose all its weight.
That's why you call it "superfluous".

And calling it "superfluous" is a form of moving the goalpost as you're manipulating the criterias for your arguments to remain valid.

[Carighan]

"Superfluous" is a big word.
Did Poland had an exodus during the Vietnam war? No. Therefore there would be no exodus during World War II.
Did the planet had global warming before the industrialization era? Yes. Therefore the current global warming isn't caused by human activity.
It's basically your argument, they're completely unrelated events on completely different scales and only share the nature of War. That's an apple and orange fallacy.

You're now trying to strawman your way out of being caught with a bad-faith argument. The burden of proof is on you. You show that nerfing Bloodwhetting as it rightfully should be (and other non-DRK minor CDs along but not to the same degree as they don't have the same inherent issue, plus that's besides the point of this thread) would lead to an exodus of Warriors. You tried, you immediatley got caught out that you cannot infer this as its trivial to find counterexamples, and now you're struggling to not have to admit that you were, well, flat out wrong.

[CKNovel]

You're now trying to strawman your way out of being caught with a bad-faith argument. The burden of proof is on you. You show that nerfing Bloodwhetting as it rightfully should be (and other non-DRK minor CDs along but not to the same degree as they don't have the same inherent issue, plus that's besides the point of this thread) would lead to an exodus of Warriors. You tried, you immediatley got caught out that you cannot infer this as its trivial to find counterexamples, and now you're struggling to not have to admit that you were, well, flat out wrong.

Please, I'm going to write it in bold font for you:
I'm not arguing about wether or not we're going to see a WAR exodus if there's a nerf

What my argument is:
The WoW Tank sustain pre-nerf and the XIV tank sustain live are two completely different situation.

I've brought my proof:
-Footage demonstrating pre-nerf and post-nerf to WoW tanks.
-Patchnotes showing the massive nerfs.

[Supersnow845]

Please, I'm going to write it in bold font for you:
I'm not arguing about wether or not we're going to see a WAR exodus if there's a nerf

What my argument is:
The WoW Tank sustain pre-nerf and the XIV tank sustain live are two completely different situation.

I've brought my proof:
-Footage demonstrating pre-nerf and post-nerf to WoW tanks.
-Patchnotes showing the massive nerfs.

But that’s the point you haven’t made a point

Anjou claimed that nerfing bloodwhetting would cause the tank population to collapse and terhix directly refuted that by saying that a nerf to tank sustain twice didn’t crater WOW’s tank population. You said that it’s an apples to oranges comparison but then didn’t make a statement on Anjou’s original point nor did you explain why WOW being different is evidence that a sustain nerf would be a net negative to 14 when it wasn’t a net negative to WOW

if WOW’s nerf isn’t evidence that a nerf could work in 14 you need to explain why. If your point is a vague “there is a cliff where nerfing beyond the cliff would cause massive dissatisfaction and it’s just neither of WOW’s nerfs crossed that while a 14 nerf would” which is what I’m imagining your point is there is literally less than zero evidence for that

[Carighan]

But that’s the point you haven’t made a point

Anjou claimed that nerfing bloodwhetting would cause the tank population to collapse and terhix directly refuted that by saying that a nerf to tank sustain twice didn’t crater WOW’s tank population. You said that it’s an apples to oranges comparison but then didn’t make a statement on Anjou’s original point nor did you explain why WOW being different is evidence that a sustain nerf would be a net negative to 14 when it wasn’t a net negative to WOW

if WOW’s nerf isn’t evidence that a nerf could work in 14 you need to explain why.

Exactly this. It's ridiculous how averse people are to just admitting they're wrong in an argument. More so because all that happened is that they got caught in the troll-y stuff Anjou posts, which can happen to anybody and I sympathize if you end up on the wrong side of a discussion as a result of that. But hey, move on and learn from it (and block Anjou maybe).

[Terhix]

But you do your absolute best to ignore that big flaws in your argument because you know it makes it lose all its weight.
That's why you call it "superfluous".

This is completely superfluous to the argument I'm making, but yes, given the fact that people didn't quit WoW en masse after nerfs to all tanks that affected them in all content it would then stand to reason people won't quit this game en masse either if you nerf one ability on one job in one very specific content only.

I didn't call it superfluous and ignored it, I called it superfluous and then showed how it works for my argument on top of it. Again, lol.