Shadow knight aggro

[Troxx]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Exactly. You provide no counter points and just troll. Please stop. It is ok to be wrong.

[Crede]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Exactly. You provide no counter points and just troll. Please stop. It is ok to be wrong.

Correction. You failed to provide any evidence that spam taunt is worth the ~5% it will actually succeed and fire at the exact moment you need it.

It’s odd that you claim 170 str is “good enough” on your monk denouncing the dps gains that would come from more str yet you think somehow that ~5% taunt chance has any actual value.

This is your fundamental flaw and it’s why you can’t win any debates. You throw random pieces of data at the wall and hope it sticks, but you simply lack the ability to formulate truly effective arguments. There’s a reason lawyers have paralegals. Leave the actual arguments for the big boys.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Crede [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Correction. You failed to provide any evidence that spam taunt is worth the ~5% it will actually succeed and fire at the exact moment you need it.

It’s odd that you claim 170 str is “good enough” on your monk denouncing the dps gains that would come from more str yet you think somehow that ~5% taunt chance has any actual value.

This is your fundamental flaw and it’s why you can’t win any debates. You throw random pieces of data at the wall and hope it sticks, but you simply lack the ability to formulate truly effective arguments. There’s a reason lawyers have paralegals. Leave the actual arguments for the big boys.

I provided plenty of evidence already:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=140

Simply claiming I haven't provided anything is irrelevant. It's factually incorrect. You have nothing to counter my points.

So far I am winning the debate. You simply are unable to concede or provide an argument.

You are strawmanning what I said about STR too, which is pretty common behavior from you. It's very funny that you think I am denouncing DPS gains. Comparing the pros and cons of starting stats is not denouncing DPS gains from STR lol. Its looking at which gains are better in the context of starting stats.

[cotterpin]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Troxx]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So far I am winning the debate.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I already factually disproved all of the arguments you made on page 2 here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=140.

Troxx is arguing that using taunt strategically is better than spamming it:

If you constantly spam it there’s a one in six chance you won’t have it up the instant you need it most … with a 1-5 second wait before you can use it again. If it fails the first time, you now have a 7-11 second wait for the second taunt instead of a faster 6 second 2nd attempt.

In that post, you explicitly concede that the approach Troxx prefers is more optimal:

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nobody is disagreeing with the fact that spamming taunt has a lower chance of success on the first taunt, including myself. Nor have I ever argued otherwise

[Troxx]

I’m glad someone (other than me) finally pointed that out …

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Will DSM concede??

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Troxx is arguing that using taunt strategically is better than spamming it:

In that post, you explicitly concede that the approach Troxx prefers is more optimal:

Cool. Nobody is making a counter argument to that point. I cannot concede an argument I never made. Please stop lying about my arguments. Repeating strawmen over and over is not a valid way to win an argument.

If you want to claim you won a debate nobody was having, that doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment.

My argument has been to rebut this statement made by Troxx and others:

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I understand this button is a lot less crucial for knights but damn … this isn’t rocket surgery. If you’re already at the top of the aggro list, it [taunt] does nothing.

Saying spamming taunt does nothing is factually incorrect, and I have disproven it utterly:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=140

I have been consistent since page 2:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...9&postcount=14

I also admitted a few of my later posts were worded poorly.

I am not sure why people want to deny that spamming taunt has it's uses. Knowing your options for using taunt is a good thing.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Saying spamming taunt does nothing is factually incorrect, and I have disproven it utterly.

You've really made this many posts, and the entirety of your argument is the fact that hitting taunt when you're already at the top of the aggro list adds one hate? Plus some miniscule chance you happen to hit it right when aggro flips?

That's your entire argument? No one disputes hitting aggro adds one hate. No one. No one ever has.

If you continue to insist Troxx doesn't mean "does nothing useful", it is you who unable to apply nuance to someone's argument.

No one cares about +1 hate, and you have given no reason why anyone should.