Factually I have provided evidence and/or quotes many times, though I dont always do so
Personally, i consider “never” to be a very extreme word
I’ve already spoken to never being an extreme term
I prefer to state facts and opinions, and I believe that I have not violated any of the rules of the forums in doing so.
I have no idea. To borrow an old adage, I can only lead a horse to water, i cannot make them drink
If bug A is fixed, it is a success
If bug B is not fixed, that is a failure
The failure to fix bug B does not detract from the success of the fix of bug A - that fix remains a success, regardless of the failure to fix bug B
Identification of a given bug is always a success, as this is the first step before a bug can be fixed
Identification of bugs not found in Blizzards internal testing process using a massive number of unpaid testers is the purpose of the PTR
This offer is open-ended, ongoing.
I too strongly object to being attributed to statements I didnt make, so I am willing to make any such corrections as soon as they are pointed out to me. I extend this offer to anyone and everyone - not just you
You are free to assume what you wish, as are all readers of the posts in these forums
That said, If I state (one example of many) that Mercy’s name is Angela, this remains a fact whether I provide proof of it or not. If you then choose to assume that this is my opinion rather than a fact, you are free to do so
Factually, I did not state that you said that I was violating the rules of the forums
I was replying to statements made that were directed to me
Will you be directing me to one or more posts where I mis-attributed a statement to you? I would very much like to fix any such mistakes.
It addresses statements that a given statement is not fact unless it is proven
As I showed in the example provided, a statement was made that was not then proven by the individual making the statement, and yet, it remains fact
The things that I state as factual are factual to the very best of my knowledge
I was addressing a statement that was made regarding what I should do (or not do) in a post.
The rules of the forum dictate what one can do (and cannot do) in a post
I dont believe I have violated any forum rules with any post I have made in this discussion
aside: just checking one more time: you stated (gist, not a quote) earlier that I misattributed a statement to you. I do want to correct such editing errors, and ask that you point the instance(s?) of this to me at your earliest convenience. I dont want to harass you about this, so this will be my last time asking about it unless you bring up the matter again. As I said, this is an open-ended offer, good forever.
It’s the equivalent of saying “D.VA’s real name is Hana Song so therefore anything else I say about them is factually correct because I can provide this most basic of details”
It does nothing to back up your claims other than the fact you can look at their bio pages.
To YOUR knowledge. Not everyone’s. Therefore these are not facts they are opinions.
I’m still waiting on you providing my the evidence where I even made such a claim about you possibly going outside of the forum’s rules. I know will not be able to prove it since I did no such thing, therefore just arbitrarily trying to make your post longer and make it seem you’re providing more to the conversation when in reality you are just repeating to same things over and over.
Your “open-ended” offer may be good forever, but I can already predict that this conversation is just going to loop back in on itself since you’ve proven that you cannot, or are just too lazy to provide statements/evidence to back up your arguments-stating the most basic of common knowledge should be enough to prove whatever you say is factual.
It’s rather sad to see.
The more I reply to you the more I see that you just want attention to help push this identity that you have all the facts when you have none to provide.
You’ve proven to me that you cannot comprehend simple requests such as “provide evidence” without it turning into some attack on yourself.
Yes. With the person I was replying to. To basically say yes it is useless to continue in this way. Figured that’d be obvious for you. No? That’s a shame…
You wanna talk about Mercy? WITH ME? I’m down for that. I just assumed you and RevertMercy and such had just all given up on that in a lot of ways. I see you more eager to pick low hanging fruit, arguing in ways you know most people won’t be able to adequately respond to.
Do you want to talk about Mercy again? I’m up for it.
Could you provide an example of him using the word ‘factually’ incorrectly? I have seen megadodo use the word the many times. I personally have never seen him use the word incorrectly. He doesn’t use it before he says something subjective.
Stating that people change there mind isn’t countering the argument, since it complete ignores it.
It can be applied to anything, from Overwatch to the death penalty.
Death penalty has been removed in a lot of countries for valid reason, you’re the kind of person to ignore the actuall arguments and say it could come back because people can change their mind.
Instead of countering the actual the argument and reasoning, you ignore it with a sentence that can be applied to any subject.
But hey, Mercy doesn’t need anything because people like you can always change your mind
The devs never stated that Mercy at 60hps is what caused her to be a must pick. That was never the case because they had to bump it up from 50hps in the first place since it was so low and this was BEFORE all the burst damage was in place.
This also the same person who saw no issues with AOE heal stacking and that personal experience is the only REAL data.
So forgive me if I say their “facts” seem to be questionable.
Could also point out how they brought up the rules of the forums and how they broke none of them although I never mentioned them; but they would be right since there was nothing they did just trying to deter the conversation.
If there is good reason for the developers to change their mind, and the developers have never explicitly stated that mass-Resurrect will not be coming back, then the assertion that “Mass-Resurrect is never coming back” is simply speculation; there is no way that one can know for certain.
The argument hits the assertion head-on.
Provided that there is good reason for it to come back, and that there was a lack of good reason to remove it in the first place. To my knowledge, neither of those two conditions are the case.
Both of those conditions are the case in Mercy’s state.
Yeah no.
I am not busting my butt off killing 3 tanks and a Brig just so they can come back because Mercy is under a bridge or something.
Goats fight are already long and drawn out because of the massive amount of healing, and with a Mass Res Mercy add into it, might as well get a pillow and blanket to watch and play a snore fest.
Most tanks lack the mobility to find a hiding Mercy anyways, so good luck countering Mass Res Goats.
If you want to get nit picky then you are correct the devs never said word for word that she was a “must pick” at 60/hps. But in the same 60-50/hps nerf the developer comments do say:
" Developer Comments:Mercy’s previous healing output made her nearly irreplaceable in any team composition. Even after this change she will still be able to deliver more healing over the course of a match than any other support hero, but it should allow for other healers to be more viable."
They used the words “nearly irreplaceable.”
If a hero is irreplaceable in every team comp it is a must pick.
Note how they also state she will deliver more healing overall yet she is beaten out by Moira?
Or how because of this nerf she is now unable to balance out the use of her utility because she now has to focus on healing since she just cannot sustain?
It seems that “oh it’s a nit pick so their still right”-is at least what I’m getting from this reply.
I was just pointing out that he (megadodo) said “Factually, the devs did state that they felt she was a must pick at 60 hps.”
The developer comments did say they thought her “previous healing output made her nearly irreplaceable in any team comp.”
I feel that “irreplaceable in any team comp” is not very different from “must pick”.
Do you have any other examples of him using the term factually incorrectly? (He’s used the term many times)
That you don’t except it, doesn’t mean it has not been said.
Jeff Kaplan
I’d like to put the notion that Mercy will be reverted to rest
Both are not the case.
Mercy got reworked for valid reasons and current Mercy is more balanced than ever. There’s no reason to rework/revert just because some people are unhappy.
You’re…seriously asking me to go through their ENTIRE post history-which thanks to their profile being privated-means I would need to search user name and scroll through every forum post they’ve made…
(If I was paranoid I’d say you’re their smurf but I have no proof and I’d like to think people ate that desperate.)
When arguing the stats to Overbuff, which yes privated profiles have skewed their acurracy, but it was stated on the forum it was only around a 5% difference from then to now.
There was another where they’ve stated she “Factually can use Superjump by herself” It was called out and they retracted it so I can’t find that one.
It appears they’ve also deleted their “Factually there is no issue with stack AoE healing” since it looks like once again they were called out on it and edited.
So each time they are “incorrect” by they’re “factual statements” they correct them.
I’m sorry each time they say factual, and it’s proved to be incorrect they edit it, it just makes it seem that they can point back and go “I’ve always been right”
If he does value personal experience, then he used it correctly in this sentence.
“Factually, I think green is the best color.” I used the word factually correctly.
“Factually, green is the best color.” I used the word factually incorrectly.
And no, he and I are different people.