Small tweak for RDM

[Ardox]

/snip

Lets me get this straight:
You say it's better to address the argument (which is defined by considering an argument Respectfully, Fairly, Objectively, Accurately) and give me a personal jibe in the same sentence?

Then you point out that elemental damage-type is purely cosmetic but can't get over the point that Fleche and Contre Sixte are unaspected? It already been explained to you that the damage type was piercing so it would synergize with piercing debuff when those debuff were a thing.

Finally, when you say that animation is not a valid proof, it's sound debate. but when you get served that exact same argument it's no longer "addressing the argument"?

[Archwizard]

Lets me get this straight:
You say it's better to address the argument (which is defined by considering an argument Respectfully, Fairly, Objectively, Accurately) and give me a personal jibe in the same sentence?

And you absolutely didn't yourself.. not even to the length of actually find mobs to look at their animation either /s

Nah, that's just matching the tone you set.

Then you point out that elemental damage-type is purely cosmetic but can't get over the point that Fleche and Contre Sixte are unaspected? It already been explained to you that the damage type was piercing so it would synergize with piercing debuff when those debuff were a thing.

Elemental damage type is cosmetic because without elemental vulnerabilities or resistances to differentiate them, the game renders them all as "magic" damage. My fire spell of 270 potency does the same damage as my earth spell of 270 potency.
Ironically, the old physical debuffs towards Slashing, Blunt and Piercing damage actually made physical damage types relevant.
So yes, the two are simultaneously valid arguments.

Nobody actually said anything about synergizing with the piercing debuff, but it is worth pointing out that would be literally the only ability in our arsenal to use piercing damage, and we would have gotten more value out of a magic vulnerability debuff like Contagion regardless.

Finally, when you say that animation is not a valid proof, it's sound debate. but when you get served that exact same argument it's no longer "addressing the argument"?

Well if you're going to ignore the progression of the argument to make a strawman...

To be clear: Gruntler made the case that the color and animations were one thing, I provided observations that his argument was incorrect.
I didn't say that animations in general were not solid proof. I refuted him on the level that he was arguing.

You then chimed in that I was basing my evidence on observation "and no hard data," implicitly stating that you considered animations not to be solid proof, while also claiming the Shiva swords are "evidence" and that magic vs physical damage types are irrelevant. That in itself is a hypocritical argument.

Plus I mean... you do know what ice is, right? Literally, scientifically, crystallized water -- "crystallize" is just another form of "solidify".
Compare an ice cube to a clear quartz crystal and they'll look very similar. That doesn't mean they're the same.

[Ardox]

/snip

Autoattack, corps-a-corps, engagement, displacement, Fleche, Contre Sixte and the unenchanted melee combo are all piercing damage.

A strawman argument is define «as giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent»
Here I'm not refuting anything, I'm stating something. I'm saying that your biased. You started by saying that you can't use animation to determine the the element of a spell, then latter started to make statement on elemental aspect of spells based on their animation. Then, when you got served the exact same statement you made yourself you started to object.

[Archwizard]

You started by saying that you can't use animation to determine the the element of a spell, then latter started to make statement on elemental aspect of spells based on their animation. Then, when you got served the exact same statement you made yourself you started to object.

I "started" in this thread, because I knew the exact argument Gruntler was going to make, because he was simultaneously making the same argument in another thread.

I objected on the grounds that the evidence presented was not conclusive by its own merits; one does not need to take all evidence as equally valid just because they're all presented in the same argument, especially when so easily refuted as "Are you and I literally even looking at the same thing?"

Here I'm not refuting anything, I'm stating something. I'm saying that your biased.

Coming from the guy who earlier simply said,

I feel all CNJ/WHM healing spells are somehow water aspected... A bit like Legend of Mana

I don't think my bias and headcanon are affecting my arguments. I don't know what aspect Vercure or Benefic are, and I honestly don't particularly care -- but I know that the argument that they're

water-aspected by process of elimination.

... is insufficient and observably wrong.

corps-a-corps, engagement, displacement, and the melee combo are all piercing damage that all use the int stat (except for the unenchanted version).

When Enchanted, the melee combo explicitly states that it is Unaspected damage and inherits from Embolden. It's only physical damage when unenchanted.
Regardless, we're still majority Magic damage and would have far greater benefit out of a Magic vulnerability buff, and that doesn't at all prove Fleche is an Ice spell.

[Ardox]

Plus I mean... you do know what ice is, right? Literally, scientifically, crystallized water -- "crystallize" is just another form of "solidify".
Compare an ice cube to a clear quartz crystal and they'll look very similar. That doesn't mean they're the same.

I love you added that because, you know, it's exactly my point of view: Fleche is an Ice spell and what you see as "pure aether crystal" is really just big crystallized water rapiers

Coming from the guy who earlier simply said

Yeah, you can see that sentence as biased, but you are not refuting my argument saying you overlook everything that don't validate your point

When Enchanted, the melee combo explicitly states that it is Unaspected damage. It's only physical damage when unenchanted.
Regardless, we're still majority Magic damage and would have far greater benefit out of a Magic vulnerability buff, and that doesn't at all prove Fleche is an Ice spell.

You know that if everything scale on INT it doesn't make any difference if it's magical or not? The only thing you needed to know was the oGCD was boosted by DRG's piercing debuff and the potency of the enchanted melee combo and the spells blew the unenchanted potency combo out of the water.

Fleche is mechanically not a ice spell because it was a job design mechanic choice, not because of the lore.