Then you hit reply on the post, not the thread you dingus.
You can’t read a basic post and realise it’s aimed towards you, even when I quote you, dingus.
I’m quite good at it, actually.
You just complain when I back up the arguments as being overly wordy.
Half of your responses recently are “I’m not even going to read what you said, but you are wrong!”
I seriously doubt that if your argument structure is so full of sophistry.
But chemistry teaching probably requires looking at systems in vacuums and not viewing the holistic structure, which is a hallmark of your stupid opinions on this forum.
“Let’s view ret in isolation in spite of dual spec existing and in spite of paladin being the most OP class in WoTLK! That’s reasonable and fair”
Said the moron.
Quite the opposite really. It’s all about looking at large scale behavior, then zooming into the atomic scale to see how the small particles lead to the large scale behavior.
That’s why I’m capable of looking at paladin as a whole, but still can zoom into Rets in isolation, and can also do that with warrior when saying Fury is the one spec that doesn’t need major buffs.
You know what difference is between male Belfs and male Gnomes? Gnomes don’t look like a woman…
Yeah except you’re not looking at it holistically at all, from the perspective of paladins already being the most overrepresented class in WoTLK.
Any scientist worth anything would understand that the OP nature of Prot/holy is cannibalizing ret more than anything.
You are a joke of a scientist and a joke of a teacher. I guarantee that your students don’t respect you if this is the best argument structure you can create.
This is another thing that is factually and observably false.
You replied to someone else and apparently the first line was to me and the second one started with the other guy you’re replying to and a semicolon?
There was absolutely zero indication you wanted my attention in that reply, none whatsoever.
I’m honestly starting to think potty training may be a tad too advanced here.
Still waiting on that proof that blizzard buffed ret because they’re the most played.
Shockingly Bladestar tinfoil hat theories aren’t proof
Oh no, I recognize that. It is overplayed. There are several factors to it that aren’t “paladins are 5x stronger than any other class.”
The tank balance is far narrower than the numbers suggest. Every tank can successfully tank every boss. There are no major survivability or threat concerns with any of them.
Paladin is the best defensively, largely because of ardent defender. So, despite the fact that your tank choice often does not matter at all, people tend to default to paladin because it could matter on a bad pull.
Some speed runners recognize that warrior tanks have strengths over prot paladin that make them a good choice when you are confident there aren’t going to be bad pulls.
Holy paladins are a bit too good at AoE healing given their single target healing potential. They could use some toning down there to encourage other healer use. Bigger issue with healer representation is that there just isn’t a lot to heal in wrath, so you can get by with very few healers, and people default to the highest throughput ones (disc/HPal) and just bring extra DPS. You’d have to pretty severely nerf all of the healers to force more to be brought to fix representation issues there.
There’s a bit of that going on as it highly reduces the value of Ret’s utility (none of it is unique to ret, and the bigger impact ones are covered by prot/holy). None of the classes are supposed to be brought only for utility though. Wrath’s entire design mantra was “bring the player, not the class,” which was meant to make it so that any class could fill the roles they could spec into competently without relying on utilities to feel justified.
The current balancing of classes largely accomplishes that. You can build a raid group with basically any composition and reasonably expect to clear the content. So long as you have full buff/debuff coverage, you are pretty much all set. The fully min/maxed group comps have some advantages, but they are largely overkill.
At no point in my guild’s progression have I felt if we just had a prot paladin instead of the feral/blood tanks we use that the boss would have died in fewer pulls. It’s usually a lack of DPS holding my guild back from meeting the tougher DPS checks. And those issues aren’t class balancing problems, it’s performance ones.
no it isn’t lmao
Etymology is the study of words.
Lexicography is compiling dictionaries and similar reference materials.
Also the absolute irony of you attempting to call people out for sophistry when that concept is the entire premise of your anti paladin stance is hilarious and sad.
4 Likes
What a complete nit-pick. Dictionaries are full of words, etymology is the study of historical reference of words, lexicography is the compilation of definitions.
I would consider someone studying lexicography as being wholly interested in words.
Figures a paladin would come in to nit-pick that fact rather than recognize Blizzard has buffed their OP class to a ridiculous degree and harmed WoTLK irreparably.
You should be ashamed. You have your little posse around you to like your posts but the fact is no paladins have been able to justify their buffs even remotely.
Smeet: You’re just lying about paladin tanks being even remotely close to the next tank. It’s honestly laughable. Don’t teach anyone, quit your job and do something closer to your level of intellect.
So you admit you used it incorrectly to attempt to insult some ones intelligence, glad we agree here. Very telling.
and yet it is a different study field than etymology and the correct words should be properly used when attempting to make an insult based on peoples intelligence. once again, very telling.
They did to blizzard and blizzard agreed. If you are still mixed up on the meanings of words and areas of academic study I can see why the choice to buff ret would upset and confuse you.
You’re nitpicking, what does a lexicographer study then? Words.
You’re also lacking capitalization and proper sentences.
Go try on someone else, you’re too stupid for this conversation.
That is literally not what they do, they compile reference material and study the compiling of reference materials, dictionaries are only ONE of the type of documents covered by this. You can keep being wrong if you want but it wont make you right.
At least I am using words correctly instead of basing my entire persona on being incredulous online.
nice ad hominem, means you have no argument. You may want to redirect this back at yourself because at least I and others know that words have meanings and proper uses.
Reference material relating to words, I rest my case.
your incredulity is strong.
Etymology is the study of words.
lexicography is the practice of compiling dictionaries and other reference materials, NOT the study of words but the study of organization of information.
Keep being wrong though it entertains me
I’m not incredulous about anything beyond your stupidity.
Etymology is the study of origin of words and their roots across time.
Leixcography is compilation of dictionaries, to call that not the study of words is moronic.
“The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something”
so you don’t believe I am stupid in you own words here. Please look up the words you want to use prior to using them. Having a hearty chuckle over here.
The literary and lexiconal communities would laugh at you for this. your inability to grasp key differences doesn’t mean you are right. It is not the study of words. it is organization and compilation.
I think they’d have a bigger chuckle at the idea you think they don’t study words in pretty much their entire professional endeavour.
You’re being ridiculous, the fact the two paladins backed you up with likes shows just how little they know about anything.