No, they didn’t, and it was explained to you–over and over–by various people in various ways, all of which was worth as much as spitting in a dry well. You can, of course, construct a narrative that paints you like a reasonable, data-driven truthsayer, and it’s no more true than me telling people I’m a flying tomato with magical farts.
This is only true insomuch as saying more damage is good. The auto-Rends are, on the whole, very little of the damage output. We proved this when Lamentation was nerfed after the PTR. The auto-application does help us deal significantly more damage, but it certainly isn’t the only way to accomplish that, and while it isn’t the worst, it’s certainly not the best.
No. You do not get to use this word that way. That is not what discrimination means. Next thing you’ll tell me is that you feel “unsafe” in this thread.
You understand that the terms good and as they apply to the topic under discussion aren’t mutually exclusive, right?
That is not a fact. At 142, they considered a 10k Paragon player to be +1 over projected balance. Cederquist has also mentioned that what 10k Paragon players are doing is not necessarily the rubric by which we should be quantifying performance in terms of buffs/nerfs. The blog post isn’t out yet, but you’re already on your horse, mouthing off about “balance,” or “data,” or fruit pies, or whatever other detritus has caught your attention.
I’ve seen your thread in GD and it’s nothing more than a thinly-veiled cry for nerfs. Your obsession with “balance” is in fact an obsession with sticking it to Barbs, or meddling in communities that give you a lot of push back. It’s obvious what you’re doing, and worse, it’s disappointing.