It was so not funny, you couldn’t find a way to explain how they were false comprisons.
Yes, and in my comparisons, I explained the upsides of each ability I listed within one sentence each, and using only as many words as I needed. If you notice, the way I described those abilities are perfectly correct. The problem is that they’re reductive, and it seems like the abilities only have upsides.
Heck, if there’s a problem with my comparisons, its because they aren’t as extreme as “Zenyatta basically took 300 health from you with a button press”.
No, I get the logic, but I object to how its presented. I think you give people the wrong idea by saying something as extreme as “He took 100 health from you with an ability that can’t go on cooldown, and he can spam it however he likes”. I think that’s a disingenuous way to frame it.
By saying “He essentially took a chunk of health away from you without even needing to damage you”, why not argue for the removal of the entire ability at that point? As I said, framing it like this is reductive, it seems alarmist, and generally it seems sneaky.
And when Ana sleeps targets, they usually instantly die. Sometimes, Ana doesn’t even need help; she can combo you on her own with nade or more damage. So why do you object to me saying “Sleep dart is essentially a one shot” or similar language?
I think you understand why you object to that language.
I responded to what I wanted to respond to. What if I didn’t have an issue with the rest of your comment? What if I thought your logic was fine besides what I mentioned? Did I need to respond to everything?
I disagreed with you, so I’m unreasonable. Okay. I see. And I don’t want you to feel that I was shouting at you, but I’d hope you take another look at my comment and realize that the worst thing I said about you was that your argument seemed sneaky.