Curse

Charcoal Ann · Aug 22, 2005, 01:56 PM // 13:56

i would like to point out that i did not look that info up just for the purposes of disproving arguments on GWG but looked it up months ago for use in my philosophy class. for some reason it sticks in the mind.

after reading many of these debates i have finally become very annoyed with the 'flaming' as people seem to think that it aides their argument. it does not it weakens it (if looked at properly) as it suggests that they have no info with which to back up their claim.

you have seen enough? has my endless quoting of the philosophic encyclopedia demonstrated that my point is not valid? are you suggesting that i know nothing about that which i speak?

SOT: my 'claptrap' is contributing to a fair argument because i am showing that personal attacks prove no point and only weaken you own argument.
i have stated my own point. if you have not read it then so be it.

SOT · Aug 22, 2005, 01:59 PM // 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charcoal Ann

i'm not refuting the argument. i am telling you that the argument is not an argument

Then why are you arguing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charcoal Ann

personally i don't like the term broken as it does indeed suggest what you say. however in the gaming dialect it is something that does not work as it should in a fair world .

So because you don't like the term we should toss it. Check. And the definition of the word 'broken' is not something that doesn't function, as opposed to not something that doesn't function FAIRLY. Right. Check.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charcoal Ann

also this is not sociology, it is philosophy

.

Telling people their argument is invalid simply because you do not like the argument is not philosophy, it is sociology, and trying to effect social behavior change by way of verbosity and semantics. Walking into a thread that was dying as it first appeared because of the nature of it is not philosophical yammering to annoy the grandpal, it is pointless drivvel designed to gain some attention. You got some.

And no, your post was attacking my own post, from pages back, I surmise from boredom on your part. The thread was going on fine (as best as can be expected in this inanity). I simply chose not to sit silent and take your words as gospel.

Then you hopped onto the other person's post. I wonder if a pattern is as obvious to you as it is to me and anyone else who reads them all in context?

Possibly.

Elistan Theocrat · Aug 22, 2005, 02:10 PM // 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

Well, I know that three rangers can easily solo quite a bit of the underworld... and it went a hell of a lot faster than the 105 build by itself. I think if people looked at all the factor's involved, you'd realize that 105 builds are not godly for farming. Yeah, it's hard to die. But it takes a long time. You could probably do the same thing 3 times with 3 people by the time a single 105 is through.

No doubt Weezer, the 105 is not as fast as some other 2somes and 3somes, but then the loot has to be shared doesnt it? I'll never accept the arguments that the motivation for the 105 build is anything but greed for many of the monkroaches that now infest the server. I've said it before I'll say it again, I don't believe anyone makes a 105 monk with the intention of doing anything but going to UW and farming up ectos/storms and such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sot

Since all other classes CAN (prove me wrong, I dare you) solo in UW if they know (once again, stronger emphasis) what the hell they are doing, his argument is invalid. End of sentence.

Wrong, I'm talking about a known and proven build which is in my opinion an exploit, that can solo in UW, I dont need to prove anything because we all know I'm talking about fact. You on the other hand, are trying to tell me that a mesmer primary or any other primary for that matter can solo UW smites like a monk can? LoL, sorry chummer, the burden of proof on that claim does not rest with us but with you. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is, I'll meet ya with my monk, you can take any primary class you want thats not a monk and I'll buy your way into UW, then you can show me. If you can show me one class that is even close to as effective as monks at soloing smites, no wait, soloing ANYTHING in UW, I'll come back and amend my remarks on this thread. Untill then I'll not belive it.

Charcoal Ann · Aug 22, 2005, 02:16 PM // 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT

Then why are you arguing?

So becuase you don't like the term we should toss it. Check. And the definition of the word 'broken' is not something that doesn't function, as opposed to not something that doesn't function FAIRLY. Right. Check.

Telling people their argument is invalid simply because you do not like the argument is not philosophy, it is sociology, and trying to effect social behavior change by way of verbosity and semantics. Walking into a thread that was dying as it first appeared because of the nature of it is not philosophical yammering to annoy the grandpal, it is pointless drivvel designed to gain some attention. You got some. It can't last.

i find this funny.

1) i am arguing because you are trying to suggest that Ad Hominem is a correct way of conducting an argument.

2)as in this case broken is being used in a dialect form i have been led to believe from many hundreds of posts on this forum (including my by yourself) that it the skills must function fairly in a predictable and consistant way. if they don't then the players call them 'broken'
i don't understand this point fully 1st of all you say: why should we toss this term just because i don't like it. then you say that 'broken' means what it does in normal life. i don't see any link. (i shouldn't think you will find the form broken being used here in any normal dictionary)

3) i am not telling people that i don't like their argument because it is not philosophy. i am telling people that i don't like their argument because it is not an argument.
argument:a set of statements (premises) that support a final statement, the conclusion.
if an argument has no conclusion is it an argument? no.
if an argument has no premises is it an argument? no.
philosophy is not old men sitting around asking bloody stupid questions like the tree in the woods. it is the science of arguments.
hence my points are philosophical not sociological. and like any sciences the inevitable outcome of information will change public opinion. without being fomulated to do so.

eg. global warming. scientists say oh the atmosphere is heating up. might be because of cars. public go: argh the government must do something they must ban all cars!

i may not respond after this (i have a philosophy essay to write

)

also i was not attacking your post. i was attacking all posts that were guilty of the Ad Hominem Fallicy. you presuming that i attacked your post alone suggests that you knew what you were doing in it.

ManaCraft · Aug 22, 2005, 02:17 PM // 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

Protective Bond is NOT broken. It does exactly what it says it does. None of the skills used in the 105 or 55 builds are broken. Nor are the runes. It is just a clever way to use them.

Right. And nature's renewal is a perfectly fine skill as well. It does exactly what it says it does, right? And anyone who uses other skills in conjunction with it to spam it like no tomorrow has just found a "clever way of using it", right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

What may or may not be broken is the areas which have no enchantment removal whatsoever. However, if you give every place enchantment removal to stop this build, then how are all these people that think Thunderhead is hard going to beat the game?

You don't fix an imbalance by conforming to it. The answer to prot bond is not to build the game around it, but to fix prot bond itself.

ManaCraft

SOT · Aug 22, 2005, 02:24 PM // 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elistan Theocrat

I've said it before I'll say it again, I don't believe anyone makes a 105 monk with the intention of doing anything but going to UW and farming up ectos/storms and such.

In the fine tradition of the sociology poster above you, I'll throw this out there:

What you encapped that up there with, is known as argumenteam ad nauseam. It means that, because you keep repeating it aloud, it makes it true. This is also known as denial, idiocy, and complete mindlessness. Take your pick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elistan Theocrat

Wrong, I'm talking about a known and proven build which is in my opinion an exploit, that can solo in UW, I dont need to prove anything because we all know I'm talking about fact. You on the other hand, are trying to tell me that a mesmer primary or any other primary for that matter can solo UW smites like a monk can? LoL, sorry chummer, the burden of proof on that claim does not rest with us but with you. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is, I'll meet ya with my monk, you can take any primary class you want thats not a monk and I'll buy your way into UW, then you can show me. If you can show me one class that is even close to as effective as monks at soloing smites, no wait, soloing ANYTHING in UW, I'll come back and amend my remarks on this thread. Untill then I'll not belive it.

Please quote me, word for word, where I said the word smite, let alone where I singled out a profession to debate you on. I am waiting. There is no debate here, there is "I am right, and anyone who disagrees with me is lying, on crack, or basically just dumb". There is no ongoing argument over the issue you claim to have postulated on. There is instead "I refuse to accept someone else is capable of doing what I am upset that I am not doing, so it cannot be possible and will therefore revert to claiming my supreme truth"

Wrong again. Trendy.

As for the challenge to meet you ingame, your forum postings tell me more than enough about who you are as a human being, so playing with you has no value for me, pro or con. I have nothing to prove to you, as you have offered me nothing that would inspire such grandstanding. Your thread is a dead thing, and your repeteating every 3rd post that you are right and everyone is simply not right because that is how it is, well, good luck with that worldview.

Eventually, this thread will be closed, and the beauty in that is immortal. Your idea that UW cannot be soloed without a monk's mite (im still not even sure wtf that is suppoed to mean, as I don't use such things) is flawed beyond repair. I take my leave of this dead husk of posts...Farewell. LMAO.

Elistan Theocrat · Aug 22, 2005, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charcoal Ann

As in this case broken is being used in a dialect form i have been led to believe from many hundreds of posts on this forum (including my by yourself) that it the skills must function fairly in a predictable and consistant way. if they don't then the players call them 'broken'
i don't understand this point fully 1st of all you say: why should we toss this term just because i don't like it. then you say that 'broken' means what it does in normal life. i don't see any link. (i shouldn't think you will find the form broken being used here in any normal dictionary)

Indeed, perhaps I'm holding to a different use of the word broken from a different mmo i've played with a different community.

So, I'll not use broken anymore, because even though I think Manacraft was absolutely right in displaying why the argument that "it does what it says it does" is invalid.

To be more accurate, the skill has an unbalancing effect on the game. "clever" use of the skill has lead to exploitation of the skill which has lead to monks being extraordinarily efficient, if not the fastest, at farming one of the more desireable places in the game. I've not yet seen proof that any other class can even begin to solo there with the smallest fraction of effectiveness that a monk has there. Online gamers are like running water, they have this innate (or maybe just inane) compulsion to find the path of least resistance, thus the explosion of monkroaches all over the place.

To be even more clear, I cant see Anet having intended people to be able to reduce incoming damage from nearly all sources down to .6% So, if the skill cannot be called broken because it fits within the 15 word skill description you get when you mouseover the skill, i'll stop using broken. However, I fully believe that the use of the 105 build is an exploit that exceeds the INTENT of the developers. The tired, 'they coded it that way" excuse is simply a way for those who know they are exploiting to see no evil and hear no evil. As if its not possible that the exploitablility of prot bond is not an oversight on thier part. Hopefully one that gets corrected soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT

As for the challenge to meet you ingame, your forum postings tell me more than enough about who you are as a human being, so playing with you has no value for me, pro or con. I have nothing to prove to you, as you have offered me nothing that would inspire such grandstanding. Your thread is a dead thing, and your repeteating every 3rd post that you are right and everyone is simply not right because that is how it is, well, good luck with that worldview.

Wow, thats alot of words and backhanded insults to say that you won't back your claim that anyone who knows what they are doing can solo UW in any class. I'd really love to see that. I told you I'd ammend my comments about the fact that monks being the only effective soloers in UW is completely unbalanced, and is due to exploitation of protbond. Hell I'd even apologize. But you don't want to grandstand, rofl.

Bottom line, I'm talking about facts, and now you're making rediculous claims about how anyone can solo UW in any class. I even gave you the chance to shut me up but good, by actually proving it, but youre not interested in that.

I am jack's complete lack of surprise.

Charcoal Ann · Aug 22, 2005, 02:49 PM // 14:49

i'm afraid that the restating of a position is not a valid way of making an argument
UNLESS people are not addressing his real point and are skirting around the issue by generalisation or over simplification (this is the straw man fallicy).
(another thought on this broken thing: the skill is in need of fixing hence is broken)

SOT he voiced his premesis at the begininng of the thread and you then say that he has not? and that he cannot restate them?

he has not restated him premesis because no-one has attacked them and hence they don't need changed.
(mite = might i think).
SOT i have enjoyed this argument and it would be nice to think that you understand my position on the subject of the totally irellivant replies this thread has recieved.
my posts strengthened the OP's position and where therefor valid to the argument (they helped by demonstrating the lack of good points on the other side)

i do think that this thread has died a death because of the constant flaming and this makes it impossible to find substance in either argument.

LifeInfusion · Aug 22, 2005, 02:50 PM // 14:50

I can't help but laugh at the 227 posts here.

Elistan Theocrat · Aug 22, 2005, 02:55 PM // 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOT

Please quote me, word for word, where I said the word smite, let alone where I singled out a profession to debate you on. I am waiting. There is no debate here, there is "I am right, and anyone who disagrees with me is lying, on crack, or basically just dumb". There is no ongoing argument over the issue you claim to have postulated on. There is instead "I refuse to accept someone else is capable of doing what I am upset that I am not doing, so it cannot be possible and will therefore revert to claiming my supreme truth"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sot

Since all other classes CAN (prove me wrong, I dare you) solo in UW if they know (once again, stronger emphasis) what the hell they are doing, his argument is invalid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elistan Theocrat

I'll meet ya with my monk, you can take any primary class you want thats not a monk and I'll buy your way into UW, then you can show me. If you can show me one class that is even close to as effective as monks at soloing smites, no wait, soloing ANYTHING in UW, I'll come back and amend my remarks on this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sot

I have nothing to prove to you.

wtfpwnd.

Sambjo · Aug 22, 2005, 02:57 PM // 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elistan Theocrat

wtfpwnd.

HAHAHAHAHA

hahaha

ha

No. This thread sucks. Lock and ban please. Thanks.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 22, 2005, 03:00 PM // 15:00

I've got a hot tip for all you low-levellers out there: farm the Cities of Ascalon quest for the necromancer -50 health item. The POS thing actually fetches 20-30K now, and is much easier to sell than gold weapons.

Better hurry up and cash in on the army of bandwaggoners before ANet nerfs the build!

Severe · Aug 22, 2005, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Nerf protective bond all you want, you can make a fully acceptable UW/melee mob, solo build without it.

Thank You, for pissing those off and driving them to find another way to effectively solo the monkeys, in and out of UW

Let's see you stop us from farming now

I posted this in another area, but I see it's relevance here as well, just wanted to let all you solo monk haters know, were here to stay

Elistan Theocrat · Aug 22, 2005, 03:04 PM // 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

I've got a hot tip for all you low-levellers out there: farm the Cities of Ascalon quest for the necromancer -50 health item. The POS thing actually fetches 20-30K now, and is much easier to sell than gold weapons.

Better hurry up and cash in on the army of bandwaggoners before ANet nerfs the build!

Thanks for bringing that up Numa, I think its very telling that such a lousy piece of equipment is suddenly one of the hottest sellers on the market. It's much like how nobody in thier right mind would've EVER worn a duplicate superior rune, on one set of armor, prior to the leaking of the exploit. Particularly when the cost 20k each or so. These two things alone point to the fact that Protbond is not being used within the intent of the spell, and thus is being exploited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Severe

Nerf protective bond all you want, you can make a fully acceptable UW/melee mob, solo build without it.

Thank You, for pissing those off and driving them to find another way to effectively solo the monkeys, in and out of UW

Let's see you stop us from farming now

I posted this in another area, but I see it's relevance here as well, just wanted to let all you solo monk haters know, were here to stay

again, I dont hate farmers. I dont hate solo play for the simple hatred of solo play. Its yet to be proven to me that any class other than monk can solo in UW, which makes Prot Bond unbalanced. Futhermore, the way that prot bond is peforming in that build would seem to be beyond what it was intended to do, and thus an exploit. Sorry, I'm not from Mo. But I'm gonna have to be shown. The day an honest to god rep from anet tells me to stfu cause they wanted prot bond to reduce a 300+pt melee attack to 2pts or .6% of the orginal damage, I'll say its not being exploited. And the day that I learn of another effective UW soloing build for any class other than monk I'll speak right up and say I was wrong, its not unbalancing... Untill such events come to pass Its unbalanced, and exploiting. And it needs fixing.

Calimar · Aug 22, 2005, 03:29 PM // 15:29

SOT: fallacy in logic is as evident as clear day if one takes time to reason. It's LOGIC - not just phylosophy. It's mathematics. "First order logic" if you want to look it up on the 'net, there's plenty of clear and very interesting literature, fast reading.
Don't like it? sorry. I can say the exact same thing in different terms, does it make it more efficient or a better argument? nope. So, to use your words "we should not use it cause you don't like the term?"
"Ad hominem" is latin - not a language I'm fluent with, but it's pretty obvious to me it means "to the man" or something like that. Do you need an encyclopedia? hardly.

As per your argumentation:
"The reason for your constant encounters of Monk this and Monk that in UW is that people talk about it in towns. In your own private instance, should you choose otherwise, unless you PICKUP a pug with them, you dont see it. Period. But that much is obvious."

Uhm yes, of course. Yet, I constantly talk to people, because I like talking. And I have never, ever, ever, heard (or read) anything about ANY other class soloing UW. Does it prove it's impossible? nope. Now, how many 105/55 monks are there? plenty. How many soloers of other classes are there? Dunno. Haven't ever heard ONE, I say ONE person claiming he did, except for you - oh wait you didn't. You just said if you can't you're a bad player. So even if this does not disprove your argument, you have not proven anything except that you can speak english, so far. And your claim remains disbelieved by many - or I've heard no voice joining you in saying anyone can solo UW.

Manacraft: Yes, it's a clever combo. If you change all skills just because one can find a great combo, you'll end up with a really boring game.
Put a couple enchantment removers in one area, you've solved the issue of solo-farming and complaints about this, without influencing ANY other area of the game. We've been using Prot bond in PvP with some success without any weird 105 build (which, IMO, wouldn't work for 3 secs in pvp), and it works great.
So you want to change a perfectly fine skill just because there is one area where there is NO enchantment removal? I say the minor reasonable intervention is in the best interest of all. Add a couple enchantment removers and see how the solo-farm build goes back into forget-land like many other FotM builds.

JMNERHO.

Elistan Theocrat · Aug 22, 2005, 03:40 PM // 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calimar

. We've been using Prot bond in PvP with some success without any weird 105 build.

If youre not using a low hp build with Prot bond to maximize the amount of damage reduction, I don't see how placing a reasonable cap on the maximum potential damage reduction the skill provides would effect your use of the skill. Meanwhile, changing UW in reaction to the exploitation of a skill instead of fixing the skill would lead to the changing of the experience for those who are not exploiting the skill. In my opinion, its always better to avoid effecting those not exploiting and focus on the exploit at the heart of the issue.

Mugon M. Musashi · Aug 22, 2005, 04:23 PM // 16:23

how the hell is using a skill properly "exploiting" ?

ManaCraft · Aug 22, 2005, 04:25 PM // 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calimar

Manacraft: Yes, it's a clever combo. If you change all skills just because one can find a great combo, you'll end up with a really boring game.

We're not talking about all skills, just one. You're blowing what I said out of proportion. I'm not advocating across-the-board changes, simply a fix for one skill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calimar

Put a couple enchantment removers in one area, you've solved the issue of solo-farming and complaints about this, without influencing ANY other area of the game.

I'll say this just one more time, so perhaps it'll get across: I don't give a damn whether people farm solo or not. That's not the issue, nor was it ever - at least not as far as prot bond is concerned.

That being said, I would like to move the game toward party play instead of solo farming, but for entirely different reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with prot bond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calimar

We've been using Prot bond in PvP with some success without any weird 105 build (which, IMO, wouldn't work for 3 secs in pvp), and it works great.

Prot bond working in pvp does not translate to prot bond working in pve. They are two entirely different worlds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calimar

So you want to change a perfectly fine skill just because there is one area where there is NO enchantment removal?

The problem is not confined to one area only. The 105/55 build is being used quite a few other places in the game as well, to avoid the difficulty of the game and ensure autowins.

So you'd like to add enchantment removal to deal with the problem? Fair enough. And what will you do when the next farmable/abuseable area comes along? More enchantment removal? And for the next area after that? You'd be hurting every other build that relies on enchantments as well, not just the prot bond users.

Better to fix the problem at the root.

ManaCraft

Sainte · Aug 22, 2005, 04:27 PM // 16:27

Dont even START comparing NR / Seed to Prot Bond.

You dont get the differences do you? Prot Bond is PVE, while Seed and NR are PVP. The difference is quite simple.

Prot bond gives you no advantage in the game's most important aspects, eg. HoH and GvG. I have yet to see even ONE person using that build in any high end PvP area. But oh wow, whats this, out of 10 games we played in HoH, 7 were NR or Seed, or abusers of BOTH.

Dont spit that bullshit about the skill is broken, its not even close. Tell me, whats the advantage of being rich in GW? You can get some gold items with stats that resemble collectors items?

NR and Seed Balls are inbalanced, its obvious when a team can stand and no do anything and not get dented by 3 running balths and 2 Symol of Wraths, and the only counter if to find the caster and desnechant him. 1 Counter, and Prot Bond has 4-5.

Stop spitting bullshit.

Mhydrian · Aug 22, 2005, 04:31 PM // 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sainte

Dont even START comparing NR / Seed to Prot Bond.

You dont get the differences do you? Prot Bond is PVE, while Seed and NR are PVP. The difference is quite simple.

Prot bond gives you no advantage in the game's most important aspects, eg. HoH and GvG. I have yet to see even ONE person using that build in any high end PvP area. But oh wow, whats this, out of 10 games we played in HoH, 7 were NR or Seed, or abusers of BOTH.

Dont spit that bullshit about the skill is broken, its not even close. Tell me, whats the advantage of being rich in GW? You can get some gold items with stats that resemble collectors items?

NR and Seed Balls are inbalanced, its obvious when a team can stand and no do anything and not get dented by 3 running balths and 2 Symol of Wraths, and the only counter if to find the caster and desnechant him. 1 Counter, and Prot Bond has 4-5.

Stop spitting bullshit.

In all your elitist BS you forgot that a very healthy number of people play 4 on 4 random or 4 on 4 matches in general. And the Pro bond monks are a serious pain in the ass there. I think its time for ANET to quit balqancing the game around the elitist crowd. I would say MORE people play random 4 on 4 than the GvG or HoH. Balance for tha majority of the playerbase.