actually, that’s more the extent of your reply: you ‘attack’ me by claiming I’ve contributed nothing and then assert that i should do more for the particulars of the topic. However, what you’ve chosen to neglect is that previous discussion on this have occurred before (hi, this is a written medium) where it could be argued the brunt of the OP’s most came from misrepresentation and unsubstantiated claims to try to make this case.
In this regard, it could be spelled out that the OP is essentially arguing a form of circular reasoning, to which, there may not be a direct fallacy to unravel the logic of their position, but that the basis of their position begins with where they want to end, so the effect of the argument fails to persuade because the form and content of the argument is already convinced of itself that its ‘right’, so it doesn’t provide the material to compel other people to adhere to its reasoning
– “typical Xenterex” would spell out more particulars of that stuff out as the whole basis of wanting change is to provide worthwhile reasons, and possibly solutions, to convince people something is an issue in the first place. If [people] like the community or the devs are convinced something is a problem, then they may act on it accordingly.
The form of the argument – ignoring pertinent information to represent their case – mirrors the OP’s approach in choosing to ignore pertinent responses to the discussion regarding their concern for the hero. Because of the lack of engagement of their claim, many of the statements given in their OP can be argued and simply ‘beg the question’ on particulars of the assertion given.
In effect, the post comes down to just a bunch of claims that mostly convey that the ending is the forgone conclusion, therefore something should be done on the merits of them having said so – to which, per the replies seen above, other players don’t agree with the perspective painted to try to offer a terse narrative on the concern, rather than more involved ethos/pathos/logos/etc
Funnily enough, the effort shown could easily be more effective, and shorter, so the tone seems more of contempt and apathy than of discussion, suggestion, or feedback – stuff OJ had been really on top before. In that regard, a reflection pertaining to the distinction of this post compared to previous discussions is pertinent, esp from someone like myself who is not afraid to, but would rather not perpetually post walls to try to convey particulars to people that otherwise aren’t going to engage with the material anyway, but will reply to me regardless for, what I would usually assume to be some foible of hubris. eg, your post at me.
The basis of any form of communication is going to involve ‘unspecified context’ and some of that context seen here stems from the previous topics OJ has made concerning reghar and the loss of lightning bond. Essentially, how OJ perceives rehgar boils down to the same sort of arguments usually associated with Tyrande’s fan-following that want her to no be a ‘healer’ in favor of emphasizing their damage contributions: rehgar isn’t a ‘healer’, he’s an “aggressive support” (per claim)
The concern of that, from my perspective, is that the crux of that claim mostly stems from the lvl 1talent “lightning bond” and not the use of bloodlust, previous damaging talents (such as searing attacks) or the application of rehgar’s other talents to foster the ‘aggressive support’ claim.
In effect, what people “loved” about rehgar, could be equated with being a ‘bruiser’ (if one compared the qualities desired per typical role association) rather than a ‘support’ or even a ‘healer’. However, the argument presentations don’t seem to realize that label, or even adopt the reality of their position to the argument, so some of what is presented seems conflicted in claim, narrow in scope, and essentially misrepresentative of what they say was the previous case versus what they assert they want.
In that regard, I would think that if that’s the case they want to assert, at the least, they could toss up a vod, or the like, to demonstrate the distinction of where the find the hero to make their make instead of just relying on hearsay. In that wise, since my concern is that the combination of healing was just as appealing for the identity of the hero, I could post a vod as a representation of my own case, but well, my concern is partcular to people who make the claim that change should suit their particular demands rather than my interest in the demands themselves.
If the basis of their claim comes from 1 talent, and the extent to how they argue for that talent is true, then that would just mean that following the suggestion to bring the talent back would simply create a must-have talent that (once again) dominates the hero picks and doens’t offer worthwhile variety for the hero, or their identity. In that regard, the realization of the distinction between claim and argument essentially undermines the nature of the argument present; rather than account for, refute or change to address that flaw, it seems the approach is to try to ignore it and then pretend change will magically follow anyway.
Per my previous response, all of what I spelled out here now is part of the ‘unspoken context’ of the response to which you replied: OP holds one sense of identity to the hero, but the realization of that claim undermines the argument of the claim they make.
Could I have been more particular in that regard herenow? Sure, but of my interest, I was content to reference the distinction before to those that should be aware of that particular. Instead of having recourse for the issue for lightning bond, instead we have a topic that drops any reference to that ability, mentioned bloodlust exists (but isn’t “meta”) and then just comes down to a complaint.
So without knowing the previous context, there really isn’t much to the OP, so at the least, my pointing out a previous topic exists (and the difference in execution between them) should matter to my intended audience.
So while I won’t fault you for evidently knowing any of that, it is par for the course for people to try to check me my posting about particulars out of ignorance instead of being more productive.
If you’d like to discuss without needless attempts at bravado, please do. Otherwise just move on, dude.
For reference:
tl;dr my previous reply ‘did’ away with the ‘needless wall’, but here it is to demonstrate the particulars of my concern for this “discussion”
Cheers
While it was only a option, regardless of the level it came at, [I] enjoyed how it could be used on totems to assist with waveclear, taking mercs, or used on an ally to encourage rushing down targets and making use of all of rehgar’s kit to be aggressive and distinct from other support heroes!
I’ve garnered a wonderful share of downvotes for my advocation that “numbers can lie” via context. Some people don’t make the distinction between numbers being the ‘literal liar’ and the use of numbers being used to perpetuate incorrect information, and thus be an accessory to a ‘lie’. That isn’t just a one-off case, but I mean that as an example to try to demonstrate that ‘context’ and ‘intent’ are the forefront of my reading of posts. My regard for that is part of why I can be a stickler on ‘reading comprehension’ as some replies I receive seem very evidently to have foregone context in favor of asserting their ego instead.
![:fist:](https://d3rakab8gpdsa3.cloudfront.net/en/heroes/images/emoji/twitter/fist.png?v=6" ":fist:")