Why are there no multi-hit skills on Sage?

[Shurrikhan]

Here you go.

Nice. That quite thoroughly demonstrates all the technical aspects.

Broader question, though: Is it feel better/necessary for Kardia's interactions to exploit multi-hits specifically, or just that it should be able to exploit variances in its triggering GCDs?

I feel like literally doubling/tripling/quadrupling its value via multi-hits would mean, in accordant balance, that the single-hit version would hardly be noticeable, so I'm a little worried about attempting to give it such a range.

Simply having it scale with damage, though, would already fit its bigger GCD hits quite nicely, I would think.

...while TRUE, I've noticed that people will often carry a grudge against some people so hard they legitimately WON'T agree with them even if they're saying the same things. Sabezy just said she's "done with me" for agreeing with someone who literally said something I've said many times, and then stated her position, which is in agreement (on several of the major bullet points and to a degree overall) with my own position. Ty and I actually agreed on a number of things, but he would attack me for it or refuse to admit when we did. Some people here have outright accused me of being disingenuous when I agreed with them...on positions I'd already been on the record holding, even accusing me of trying to pull something by being too nice.

Which had very little to do with the position so much as that said poster was very, very obviously using a strawman (that the current discourse had supposed that any increased offensive agency on healers would necessarily be mere a 123 combo) just to smirch a far broader position (that the current Broil spam gameplay can be favorably replaced/augmented through additions to healers' downtime depth).

Sebazy, myself, and others gave the benefit of the doubt at first that he had simply seen the healer 123 combos idea elsewhere and assumed it was far more popular than it actually was and contextualized it for him, only to be repeatedly ignored in favor of a red herring and blatant misinformation. By the point of your agreeing with the poster, his behavior had clearly gone the way of trolling/purposefully derailing, and given the timing of your previous responses around his own, it probably seemed likely you were aware of that.

Sebazy herself had already concurred with that poster. The difference would be the when (before he purposely ignored all factual correction and repeatedly pretended that no one had already and again contested the idea) and why (providing context, rather than coming in after the fact to join the guy in beating down a strawman to celebrate a moment of "Eyy! We agree!").

I'm a bit shocked you of all people are saying that considering...

If I get time to read prior posts, I tend to cite those who beat to a given point that I felt needed to be made, regardless of who made it. That's almost as often yours as, say, Roe's, Ty's, or Aravell's.

Again, we've agreed on a lot of shit. We just approach certain things rather differently, wherein I like to find a means to make all parties happy first (by resolving unnecessary bottlenecks / removing unnecessary constraints) and compromise only if necessary, whereas it's felt like you tend to jump straight towards that compromise, trying to resolve who should get what portions of time on the 8-lane intersection while I'd have just installed a roundabout.