No you are mistaken and allowing your own bias to derail the discussion. I brought up a topic that is perfectly relevant to the conversation, just because you don’t want it to be, doesn’t mean that it ain’t.
If I’m talking about apples and you reply to my argument about apples I will assume that we are still talking about apples unless otherwise stated. You failed to make that clarification.
That is an assumption, we don’t assume things. If you say “remove 2cp” that is what you are stating, we won’t try to interpret the fact that you might be talking about something else, we don’t read minds.
Again, learn what the word means before using it, I know it sounds fancy and makes you look smart but you are using it wrong in an attempt to diminish my argument because you don’t like it or agree on it. You are welcome to disagree with me and express it, but don’t resort to use that word when you don’t even know how to use it.
Even if that is true, it is annoying how they are not responding to any of our feedback. I don’t think they hate Mercy because they give her so many skins… But that’s about it.
as if giving her 10hps back would create another moth meta - she was perfectly balanced with 60hps. it was the magic number. Meanwhile ana has an almost 100% pickrate (which is as high as mercy’s was during the moth meta) and suddenly it’s okay
They actually stated in an interview that she was their favourite hero, looking at the amount of skins she has recieved it makes sense.
But they do hate discussions around mercy balance.
Now you’re just waffling. Bringing up random topics to make a whole different argument look better is the very definition of a strawman.
What? So you’re telling me that even when already knowing Jeff’s quote you thought in your head ”HmM ThIs BlOkE DEFinetlY iS saYin tHat JeFf oNce pUt 3Cp iN tHe lIve GAme”
For reference, here’s Jeff’s quote:
I’m not even going to read the rest of this paragraph since I already pointed out that it was an assumption - an educated guess.
My argument is that most pros should be listened to in regards to balance because they are skilful and knowledgable of the game. Let’s make this point A.
You reply to my argument with this:
Let’s consider this point B.
If I say point A and you refute point B, that is a strawman argument. You’re not refuting my original point. Can you please actually look up what a strawman is before being a Grammar pendant?
Tbh, I think I’m done here. You’re clearly not listening to anything that is being said and are now just wasting time. With nothing meaningful being discussed, I’m just going to leave it here. Also, I’m muting this thread so I don’t have to reply to it again. Think that’s best for both of us. Good day.
“I don’t like what you have to say and I have nothing good to say on it so I’m going to call it a strawman to attack you personally”
That is what you said, literally. Learn how to argue with people in a logical sense please.
But it’s funny how you assume what matters to your argument and never try to look at it objectively and be neutral about it. You said that their arguments were based on logic and facts, but al he said was “remove 2cp” there is no logic or facts in there, yet you make an “educated guess” out of nowhere that he is talking about something with nothing at all that might suggest that.
Again you are wrong as my statement is a direct one to yours. You argue that we should listen to pros because they are skillful and knowledgeable, but I countered that argument already, then you proceed to say the exact same thing when we addresses the “remove 2cp” statement that he said which has no logic or facts, which in turns means that there is no knowledge or wisdom in his statement and therefore should not be taken seriously in any capacity. That is why I said “just because” since your argument is not backed up by anything substantial you said it literally “just because”. But of course you aren’t going to admit that and proceed to say it’s a “strawman”.
Listening doesnt equal agreement. You clearly cannot stand someone else challenge your opinion and need to resort to attacking the person in turn.
Would you two please stop doing a higher brow version of ‘No U’ to one another, you can go all day but obviously you disagree and somehow have different opinions on facts, but it’s obvious your both too stubborn to contemplate or listen to the others argument.
Disagreeing is not being stubborn, I “listened” to his argument and I disagree. I am simply expressing my opinion on the matter which I am free to do, if you don’t like it you don’t have to interact with us or even read it.
I am not “No U’ing” him. When he derailed the discussion by attacking me personally I just simply proceeded to expose him on that, before that we were discussing the matter in an entirely valid way until he ran out of things to say and proceeded to accuse me of doing something I was not.
