Black magic...kinda sucks

[EllieShadeflare]

Again by that logic we shouldn't have reviews, commentators, or critics who were not first top of the line in whatever they are talking about. That obviously is not the case, and therefore YES you can judge something if you have an actual understanding of it without being a top tier player fist.

You're making complaints about dungeons (particularly, LEVELING dungeons),, something that most players in the game consider to be the bare minimum of content, and haven't shown the least bit of evidence of your proficiency. Certainly, proficiency isn't a requirement for having opinions of any quality but most people will question your legitimacy if you have proven to not know what you're talking about.

(See: the Cuphead controversy, or when Polygon played Doom 2016. The absolutely terrible gameplay provided by Polygon called into question many of their other reviews (including Starfox Zero) because of just how bad they played.)

Um...ships, tanks, and whatever else a turret can be MOUNTED on let alone fired while on the move? Or do all those things need to stop for the turret to be used? In fact here is proof positive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF3iRvDzF_w

So your point about turrets having to be stationary was what again? Because while I am all for rewarding staying stationary, it doesn't mean that the job shouldn't be able to move when necessary to avoid mechanics.

...you... do realize that the turret itself doesn't move (beyond rotation), even though it's mounted on a plane, ship, tank, dinosaur or whatever... right...? You shot yourself in the foot with this point to get a "gotcha!"

In either case, the "turret" gameplay refers to the idea of "moving as little as possible to maximize damage". That's it. All of our attacks are on the GCD, we have abilities designed to counteract direct movement (whether it be our teleports which are getting improved animation locks or Manaward and its GLORIOUS 35% Max HP damage shield) and we can still slidecast in emergencies.

Which is a trap, because no matter HOW I pointed it out, people would have accused me of making an issue over my gender. So I let it go until finally the frustration got the better of me over having to repeat myself. Which is funny, since as much you say I was playing a victim...the tone of responding posts HAS shifted since I stated I was a woman. Imagine that.

You have made statements where you directly correlate disagreement with you with misogyny and harassment. Like, literally, you have shifted the tone of many of your dissenting posts from simply "people don't understand where I'm coming from!" to "you guys are misogynists!"

Nobody made it a big deal that you're pulling a "victim card" until you started to say things like "shouting down the dissenter until they go away!" "nobody on the internet ever argues reasonably!" "you guys are gonna say something like go back to the kitchen!"

I mean, no offense... but it seems like you almost don't think through the things you type.

[Mahrze]

"you guys are gonna say something like go back to the kitchen!"

I mean, no offense... but it seems like you almost don't think through the things you type.

That last one in full context is not a victim card.

Sounds to me that the detractors in this thread can't be bothered to argue why the job is fine as it is when better options exist. But hey, I'm on the internet so I guess it's my fault for thinking people actually try to use logic to convince each other...I keep forgetting the preferred method is shout the other person down as a group, make them a strawman, and put intent and words in front of what they actually are saying. Silly me, guess I better get going before someone tells me to get back in the kitchen or some other stupid shit next.

Using the gender card as sarcasm isn't playing the victim. A bit snide, yeah but hey, its fallen to an ad hominem thread at this point so don't mind me. I'll go grab my popcorn.

[EllieShadeflare]

That last one in full context is not a victim card.

Using the gender card as sarcasm isn't playing the victim.

It still lines up with her using her gender as an excuse for why people disagree with her, albeit indirectly. Also an ad hominem in a sense, but still incredibly dishonest.