DarkMaster

Yea, I would definitely like to see */Nin for Scrappers, but not sure about wanting it on Brutes or Tankers, almost doesn't fit the theme for them, especially Tankers.


*/Nin for Scraps all the way tho.

A portion of hide being "unsupressed", I think, is one of the best options right now...imho, and I think that's how it should have worked all along.

However, one quick look at the "Detailed Info" and you'll see that a power like that, and certain others, are definitely not situational powers. In fact, with the vast amount of times, I'm sure, a melee toon without support would be mez'd between the lvls of 20-30 alone should have you begging to have ANY sort of mez protection, even if you didn't realize that it wasn't as "situational" as it may have sounded. Having even, what you think, is a "short duration" and "situational" mez power would be better than nothing, especially against boss encounters.

Yup.


These are identicle to ALL of my experiences with all of my EA Brutes.


In the "If You Were Castle How Would You Change Stalkers?" thread, located here: http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=241835, I actually proposed a portion of Hide working in the same fashion as an EA Brutes Energy Cloak. That portion of "unsupressable" hide would have the same values that EC for Brutes does. So basically, Hide would have a "2-part" Stealth system. So while you are actually "IN" Hidden Status (our current full on invisibility through) you can't be seen at all and your first attack can critical and you can get Assassin Strikes, however, once you attack and your Hidden Status is off, there is a portion of Hide that will not supress its Stealth component and remain on. This portion will not grant auto-criticals, and only gives your slightly more stealthyness and helps you to generate "less" aggro on teams and solo. Seems exactly what a Stalker wants/needs.


An example of this would be to take your Brute, get Super Speed + Energy Cloak or StealthIO + Energy Cloak. For the most part, this will make you almost undetectible by most mobs even if you're almost right next to them. Now, run up to a mob and attack him. Super Speed's -aggro/stealth or your StealthIO's stealth will supress the second you attack that mob....however, your Energy Cloak will still retain it's Stealth values, which means that while the spawn you are attacking may see you, any stragglers outside of that spawn, or nearby spawns, will not have a chance to see you. You remain...a stealthy assassin.


To me...this concept fits Stalkers....it fits them about 10 times more than it fits my Brutes....to be honest. Anyways, I advise anyone to give that thread a good read, there were some other really good suggestions on there as well. The "non-supressing" portion of Hide is somewhere towards the last couple of pages.

It is also DEFINITELY something that you should have picked up as soon as possible, or at the very least sometime prior to lvl 20. You have been sorely gimped for 35 levels, I'm afraid. I'm quite honestly surprised you even like melee AT's at this point, given the experience you've had with them. Have you been running around with an Empathy Defender for 35 levels who has been granting you endless +res to mez? I just can't fathom 35 horrendous levels without it...


To any extent, and for future melee toon builds....never....and I mean never skip out on your mez protection, or hold out on it until the last minute. You are not only affecting yourself when you do, but bringing down your team as well.

No, "everyone likes ice cream" is an opinion, because we do not know that "everyone" likes ice cream. You are simply "assuming" that everyone does. Thus, it is an "opinion" and not a "fact". Unless you did a poll on the entire planet and your results came back at 100%, then it is purely opinion that everyone likes ice cream.


On the contrary, you stating "I like ice cream" is not an opinion, because unless you yourself are "unsure" about whether or not you like ice cream, then it is 100% fact, that you do indeed "like ice cream." There is no question in that statement. Is someone going to go up to you after stating that and somehow prove to you that in fact you "do not" like ice cream? Lol, laughable at best.


Andrew: "I like chocolate ice cream!!"

Jack: "No you don't, and I can prove why you don't."

Andrew: "oh yea...you're right...I don't..."


Does that make any sense? Not really.


Yes, in certain contexts, stating "I like ice cream" can be called an "opinion", but only when in those contexts. The subject we are discussing, was not used in those contexts. For example, if you and your friend are about to order dessert at a restaurant, and he asks you: "what do you think of the chocolate ice cream here? What's your opinion on it?" and you then state: "I like their chocolate ice cream", then at that point, yes, you are giving an opinion. You are stating that you like the chocolate ice cream from that particular establishment. There is a "subject matter" involved in this scenario: the restaurant. This would make it your "opinion" on that restaurant's chocolate ice cream. Meanwhile your friend could order the ice cream, get it, and think it's the most horrid chocolate ice cream he's ever tasted. Once again, when used in the correct context, it can be an opinion to like something and not to.


Basically--and what has caused all this confusion--the main problem is that the original example was a horrible example of a basic opinion, and the explanation supporting it did not support it very well:

ORIGINAL
This can be shown to be wrong or right, because in the context it was used, there is no way to tell someone that they "don't" like chocolate ice cream. This sentence, is the root of all this blather and confusion. As I said, if you had gone back and read what I was referring to with my response, you would have seen the slight error on the original poster's part.

Oh-boy...I really don't wanna raise the dead on this again...but this must be corrected..


You might possibly, actually thoroughly read what was said beforehand, before trying to "correct someone else" as well. This is why so many people have "fact" from "opinion" confused. Because they really don't take the time to read and understand the content.


Had you actually read what I was quoting, you would have saw that yes he was indeed not stating an "opinion" with: I like chocolate ice cream.


If anything that is a fact, and not an "opinion".


Why is it a fact? Simple, because he can prove as to why he likes chocolate ice cream over any other flavor. That's why. It is his own personal favorite, so he can prove why it is. He doesn't draw any other factors or people into the equation, which makes it a proveable personal opinion/taste. So no, that sentence was not an opinion. I gave plenty of examples of opinions in the previous thread, but here's an example of that sentence becoming an "opinion" rather than a "fact".


Pay close attention...


Opinion: I LOVE chocolate ice cream, it's the BEST flavor in the world!


Why is this an "opinion"? Because it is something that one cannot actually prove. It is the person's "own opinion" and "personal taste" as to why he simple looooves chocolate ice cream, however he cannot prove that everyone in the world feels the same way about it. There are too many variables and too many different preferences between people to clearly state that "chocolate ice cream" is the best flavor. I'm sure there are many more people that hate chocolate ice cream but love strawberry ice cream to death. This is why the love of chocolate ice cream is the person's personal opinion.


Once again, in the context that the original sentence was written, it was written as more of a personal taste and/or fact, or simply a statement of what one likes. It was closer to being a "fact" than an "opinion" because it does not draw anyone else into the equation and conclusion of why they like chocolate ice cream. It only included themselves in the conclusion, which can be proven if it's your own personal favorite flavor.


Facts are proveable in formation. It can be numerical facts, historical facts, scientific facts, etc., as long as you can back up what you claim with acceptable proof. In fact, numerical facts are the most easily proved as there is almost no denying them. Here's a couple simple ones:


There are 24 hours in a day.

3 plus 2 equals 5.

There are 12 months in a year.

There are 60 minutes in an hour.

10 minus 3 equals 7.


Thanks for the link btw, because I need to post it for you, which I find hilarious. Here ya go:

I ditto that. Please pay attention next time. Skimming material doesn't help you or anyone else.


Now that everyone has the correct information, lets let this die so the thread can continue without further derailment.

Imho, EA is a weak piece of garbage and definitely needs fixed/tweaked.


It's your "Super Strength", which is your primary, which is carrying you through and making it seem "not all that bad". SS, DM, and SM all pair very well with EA, and it's not due to any sort of "synergy" really. It's just because they help to fill the major holes that EA has in it's ability to protect you. As a matter of fact, you could most likely run just your mez protection, Entropy Shield, on your EA Brute and you would do just fine against +1 to +2 average mob spawns, solo to +2 size. Maybe more. That is how much primaries like these can skew your results. SS and SM bring tons of high damage, KD's, and Stuns. DM brings alot of -tohit (to fill those low defense numbers), heals, and even a Fear. Those mitigations make EA seem "ok."


EA doesn't get good until you add IO's to it (or DN), but at that point is it the IO's that are making the difference and pulling the weight? Or is it EA? I say that it's the IO's, since EA doesn't get decent until you jam pack it with them..


I, for one, still believe that EA needs some dev attention and buffing.

I actually REALLY like the empower combo/buff on my Stalker. I think there is a time and place to use either the empower combo or the sweep combo. Sure, people may say that the empower buff is "so weak" but combined with Build Up you DO have a 100% +dmg bonus, something that other Stalkers cannot get outside of IO's or outside buffs. That 100% damage buff lasts me long enough to get off a chain with Attack Vitals and an attack or two after that. Then the extra 20% that Empower is adding to me lingers around for at least 1 more chain of Attack Vitals. To me, it all adds up, and actually makes the Empower combo useful on a Stalker.


I'm with others though, I think DB is awesome on a Stalker! Very fun! I actually enjoy it more on my Stalker than my Brutes/Scrappers! Sometimes Stalkers have to think, DB makes you do that to when deciding combos which will help you out most. When paired, there is rarely a "dull" moment

Exactly.


I dunno, it's just sorta sad that my EA Brute with EC+SS+StealthIO feels more Stalkerish than my Stalker when it comes to being stealthed lol


For an idea and example of exactly how the two part stealth system for a "Stalker" would work, all you need is an EA Brute with EC+SS+StealthIO. With those three combined, you are completely invisible to most mobs, which means that you can run right up next to them, stand there, do a dance, and they'll never notice (I think EC+StealthIO is enough too). Now, to experience "2-part-stealth" take your Brute, stand in front of a target, and smash him in the face Your SS and/or StealthIO will supress their stealth components at that time, leaving you with "just" the lesser stealth component of Energy Cloak, which isn't a very powerful stealth component btw. Ta-da! Two part stealth! Something that I believe would be perrrrrfect for a Stalker and our playstyle. I mean...we are still suppose to be "the masters of stealth" and "stealthy assassins" right? So why is it we can't retain some of that "stealth" ability...even after we attack? Why are we then so inept that we are in blatant view of all after just one attack? That doesn't sound very "master of shadows" or "ninja" to me lol...


Btw, EC basically lets you get "near" mobs but isn't full stealth, get too close and they see you. The advantage to it is, it doesn't supress, even when attacking, which means that neighboring spawns will almost never notice you, and even mobs within the same spawn many times won't notice if they aren't right next to eachother. To me...this has STALKER written ALL over it...so it puzzles me as to why Stalkers don't have a system like this in place, for Hide. It would help us keep too much aggro off of our backs when teaming as well. I think survivability would go way up for any Stalker, +def or +res based, with no bias to any.


Also, for the aoe placate idea, yea I can see the problem with a full aoe placate effect. But, what if the placate affect itself was just single target, but there was an "aoe" to-hit-debuff attached to it? So all targets around the placated target would lose some tohit. In RP: you placated their teammate and cause a little confusion amongst the combatants as he is no longer able to see you, his allies still see you, but are having a harder time trying to hit you. (AoE -15% tohit for 20 seconds, non-enhanceable). Just a thought and a different approach for an aoe placate idea.

I'm actually all for that idea too, as I think it would help out "non" +defensive sets ALOT.

Keeping the "PvP" balanced is the hard part when suggesting Stalker buffs, because we aren't in dire need of any "buffs" when it comes to pvp.


Drastically shortening animation times, reducing the time it takes to rehide, granting more ability to re-hide and critical, these are all things which will indeed affect PvP, and would in most cases make Stalkers more powerful there. I don't see that as something the dev's want to do at this time.


This is why I'm really pushing for a "pve only flagged debuff" (Crippling) being added to AS. Because it's something that could be easily flagged for "just" pve, and it wouldn't drastically change the mechanics or be a major playstyle adjustment for the pvp. In fact, in pvp you'd hardly notice that it wasn't there since the debuff pretty much just "automatically" works in pve with a successful AS.


I can see why "pvp based" Stalkers don't like the Crippling debuff idea, because it wouldn't improve their performance in pvp in any way at all. But I honestly, I really don't feel that the dev's think we need too much help there. A "direct" increase in damage would affect pvp in most cases. Sure, they could try to flag some of that damage increase for pve only, maybe, but then you sorta feel cheated when entering a pvp zone. Also, if they were to drastically reduce animation times, refresh times, and re-hide times in a "pve only" environment, but then set them back to "standard" in pvp, that would definitely cause a stir and upset people. Why? Because you'd be used to the way your Stalker feels in pve, then walk into pvp and it would play very differently. You would definitely feel the change and many would be upset about it. It would be like getting "nerfed" anytime you step foot in a pvp zone. Sure, there are other AT's that have that same feeling, but they dont' pvp much due to that feeling. I wouldn't like this to happen to Stalkers.


As far as "cast/refresh" times go, earlier in this thread I did also propose a slight change to certain powers, such as Assassin Strike, which would be minor enough in appearance that it wouldn't be a huge change in playstyle. I suggested that all AS's be reduced to have the same activation time as Kinetic Melee's AS (3 secs changed to 2.67 secs). This wouldn't be a huge change, but it would be enough of one that it may help us get an AS off with a little less worry of being interrupted. This would help us in using Crippling and keeping its debuff on our target during a fight.


I also proposed that Build Up's refresh time be reduced to 72 seconds, just like Claws's Build Up. This would help it to be up more often, which makes it more useable for our "burst damage" style of play. However, Claws users didn't like that idea too much, even though I suggested their build up be reduced to 60 seconds.


Those two changes combined with the debuff effect Crippling and the increase in +Critical per teammate range, I feel, would go a very long ways in helping Stalkers be alot more helpful on teams in pve, and wouldn't drastically affect their performance in pvp, other than the cast time/refresh time changes of AS and BU. Those are some pretty significant changes, when combined, and I do feel they'd be game changers for a Stalker in pve.

Yea, he'll have to take into account the "non" hide figures since mids doesn't show that. However, all in all I think he'll be just fine and with little problems, especially with his damage output. I have one of my /Nin's that runs nothing but SO's and has ALOT lower defense than that and he does just fine all the way up to about +2's/+3's.

I have to second this.


If you want to learn the game, play a Blaster or even an "average" Dominator/Corruptor. I really don't recommend "easy-mode" characters for ANYONE who is first starting out. It takes any of the "fun" challenge of the game away and honestly leaves you feeling empty by the end. Why? because you didn't ever run into a real challenge. Things that are too easy really aren't fun, and I will almost garauntee that once you get to 50 for the first time with "easy-mode" toons, you and your freind will be cancelling subscriptions shortly after. You'll have no reason to stay as you'll have experienced all the content set on "easy" and have no toons left to try which could challenge your first for being better.


I like to suggest people to start out with Blasters or average Dom's and Corruptors. Those AT's will really help you to "learn" the game from the start, and really know whats actually "hard" and what's actually "not." This gives you better fulfillment down the road as you level up other characters and stick with the game. Challenge is always a good thing.


I do, however, also recommend Scrappers to first time players. Not Brutes or Tankers mind you. Specifically Scrappers. Mostly because they are wickedly fun for the beginner who is trying to play a toon with a very "superhero" centric theme. Scrapper's fit that role perfectly imho. Brutes are honestly just a tad "easier" overall with leveling imho, and thanks to being slightly defensively "meatier" than their Scrapper counterparts, they might give you a slight misconception of what is "scary" and should be avoided or handled with care. They can also put up serious damage numbers on top of this, so I can't really suggest this class to a new player who wants to learn the game. Tanks are sorta the same, you'll become very jaded with how much damage they can soak and will honestly end up not respecting their damage soaking capabilities down the road. Furthermore, you won't fully understand why squishies on your team are dying so quickly, and you may not completely grasp which mobs are giving them the hardest time that you should be taunting. Later, when going to play any other AT, they will all feel ENTIRELY too squishy in comparison.


I suggest the Scrapper because out of the 3 major melee classes (Tanks, Brutes, Scrappers) they are the "least" survivable. This means that you will have a slightly better respect for the damage dealt by certain mobs as well as a much better respect and understanding of what the "vicious" mobs can unleash upon your team. Don't get me wrong, a Scrapper can stand toe-to-toe with the best of them, but for the most part, a first time player "most likely" won't be building the "best" possible build for a Scrapper and will in fact not attain those levels of absolute awesome. They will be great and survivable, but probably not at the same level as a weathered vet, which should allow them to have alot of fun challenges the entire career. Also, Scrapper's deal good solid damage, and they deal it with style. One of the most addicting things in this game can be damage, and its definitely something that will help keep the continued patience of a new player. Knowing how much damage you can deal against certain targets/threats will help you later on in your career with other AT's as well.


These are my "opinions" of course, based upon the general concensus I have gotten from players in-game as well as on these boards. I'm sure that someone out there started with a Tanker from 1 - 50 and had a great ride and never got jaded about the damage absorption ability of that class, but I'm just giving a general opinion here to help guide you both down a "possibly" more fun path for a newcomer.


Anywho....a little long-winded lol, but those are my suggestions for a "first" AT. Basically, just do yourselves a favor, and please resist the urge to roll "teh bestest and most uberfantastictist!" toon as your first toons to fifty. Unless you really don't plan to stick with the game for more than 2 or 3 months that is.

Lol, I think what many of you aren't fully grasping here....is that the Stalkers ability to "debuff" his target would MASSIVELY increase his own "personal" damage output on that target, as well as anyone elses damage output on that target.


You want a small damage increase? Worthless in the whole of things. You want an indirect damage increase that will further hinder your target and help your team. It's a solid debuff.


Crippling would, in all good sense, be a serious damage increase against a single target. No one is going to be asking a Stalker to play "debuffer" with his one very situational single target debuff. You guys are really sorta turning a blind eye to the damage increase you will get from this type of a debuff. Wanna know what it would "sorta" feel like and just how much faster you'll eliminate your single targets with it? Simple. Grab a */Cold Corruptor, setup a mission for a +3/4 boss, enter it. Then ask him to use Sleet+Benumb on your +3/4 Boss target the very milisecond "after" you AS him, then continue attacking. Profit. See just how much faster you're able to take that boss down. In fact, if you have a mission available with an EB, try it there as well. Just ask your buddy to refresh Sleet+Benumb every 30 seconds if needed.


In reality, your capability of dealing some serious single-target mayhem against a hard target will skyrocket, and this does not have to be achieved through a direct damage boost. One thing that this will have over a direct damage boost is, it makes you somewhat more appealing to a team running high con missions or AV/EB runs, since your single target capability is not only good, but helps increase their effectiveness as well. This sort of ability is what makes Buffers/Debuffers so appealing to a team.


Also, people claim that the debuff would be somewhat useless against 90% of what we fight in this game, and that a direct damage boost would be better. While I think that claim is a bit of a stretch, whether or not its true, what does it matter? If we are already taking down "soft" targets (medium level minions/Lts/low level bosses) with ease and within a couple of shots, then what is a "direct damage boost" going to do? You'll STILL be taking down those same mobs at the same rate. However, when you get to the high level EB or AV, the direct damage boost is going to offer ALOT less to you and the team than the indirect damage boost from a debuff. Furthermore, your debuff will affect and improve the entire team's damage pace and allow you to clear that target much faster.


People also claim that we already have debuffer AT's to do the debuffing. While that's true, it also has its problems. It means that while in a mission you will have to wait for that debuffer to decide to cast his debuff on your target. You might have to plead with him to do it more often even. But what about that hard target that is staying just outside debuff range and your team hasn't noticed yet but are getting slaughtered by it? As a Stalker, THIS scenario is one of your major callings. In that case, you won't have the Debuffer to debuff your foe and it's all up to you to take him down quickly. Without debuffs on a hard target and being solo, it's not always a walk in the park or "quick" either. What if while your debuffer was pulling the boss mob he got 2-shotted and dies? It happens often enough on average pick-up teams. If that debuffer used toggle debuffs (such as Rad), that hard target he just pissed off if no longer debuffed at all. If you had Crippling attached to AS, this would not be a hard problem and you (and even your team, thanks to the debuff) could put down that target quickly and recovery from a situation that almost went south.


The ability to "not" have to rely on a debuffer is what this would bring to a Stalker. This means that you can personally and professionally hand select the most threatening targets on the battlefield and quickly remove them without having to wait on a debuffers assistance. It also means that while teamed, you will be adding damage to your team against hard targets which means faster level clearing. This debuff would indeed be a damage debuff, just an indirect one.


I think that too many people "assume" that everyone plays on the most optimized team ever 100% of the time with the best players in the game. I'm sorry, but this is about as far as it gets from the truth. I don't know how many times I've been in pick-up groups where we were extremely light on solid debuffs or had none at all. In reality, most pickup groups will play out with "spotty" AT selection and even "spottyier" player skill level. Many times the main debuffers for the team even get themselves killed when trying to pull or debuff a hard target, and this happens not because their AT is bad or just bad luck, but because the player behind the controls isn't as skilled with the set as he could be. Because of these more "average" scenarios, I find Crippling to be vastly important to a Stalker's overall performance, especially when teamed. If your team happens to be debuffer heavy, then sure, Crippling would somewhat lose some of it's value, but honestly, oh-well. If you're on a debuffer heavy team, then direct damage buffs and debuffs are being thrown around like candy anyways and you're most likely steamrolling through the mission at fast pace. No one loses in that scenario, even though Crippling takes somewhat of a back seat to the massive area of effect debuffing being thrown about.


Imho, it even fits the concept of a Stalker. As I said before, you are striking your target from out of no-where. He is un-prepared for your attack and bewildered. In "real life" or just the RP sense of things, he would be so surprised that he would be stumbling about trying to recover from your attack, but not fully aware of where it came from. This would, in theme, decrease his defenses and ability to defend himself against you for a matter of time, thus making it easier for you to dispose of him, before he does have a chance to regain his senses (the time duration).


The indirect damage buff associated with Crippling would be amazingly effective at increasing a Stalker's own damage output as well as making them more attractive to a team setting, and that one suggestion I still have to stand by. Maybe mixed with a few other tweaks, fine, but I think Crippling is necessary.

Lol, I wasn't trying to drag you into an argument, but you are definitely trying to drag yourself into one. I was simply pointing out and defining "fact" from "opinion" to the boards. I don't even think I was rude about the way I pointed out your obvious mistake, but once again, you've come off and responded back with arrogant anger. As far as I'm concerned, I'm able to let old posts from previous and seperate threads die, and to not involve them, or my feelings towards another poster, cloud my posting responses in the future. I don't hold grudges between forums and threads, as I feel it's a new start for a chance at intelligent and civil discussion. You, however, seem unable to do that.

What's been proposed is more than just a -regen debuff, it would also be a -30% resistance/defense debuff for 30 seconds, on top of the -500% regen debuff. No matter how you slice it or dice it, that's a pretty powerful debuff on a single target, especially for a "non" debuffer/buffer AT. This means that, instead of picking up another Defender or Corruptor, a team could pick up a Stalker to fill the debuff role instead, while at the same time adding more damage to the fight (more than a Corruptor or Defender). The Crippling effect suggestion, on top of other suggestions (such as an increase in range on our +crit ability from teammates) would greatly increase a Stalker's damage potential against a single hard target while teamed. In alot of ways, it might actually make him more valuable to a team in overall AV damage output than adding a Corruptor or Defender to fill the debuff role, imho. Which means the AV not only is being effectively debuffed the entire fight, but is also dying alot faster. For most teams, that's a win/win situation, and I feel as though that is what our role "should" be when teamed.


Granted, 90% of the game doesn't require that one advantage, but it is useful in other applications as well, such as teams fighting multiple bosses and EB's at greater than +2 their level. The Cippling effect will help in those situations, and it will help both the team and the Stalker remove threats quickly.


Overall, I'd like to see these 3 things changed/fixed/added for Stalkers:

• Add Crippling Effect (-regen/-res/-def) debuff to successful AS's, 30 second duration, not stackable from same caster. PvE Only.
  
• Increase Stalker HP Cap to better utilize HP buff recieved awhile back.
  
• Increase Stalker "+Crit Chance Per-Teammate" range to between 50 and 60 feet.

In my opinion, if those three things were implimented for Stalkers, they'd be pretty darn close to being 100% fixed and ready for teaming.

And I was simply correcting you on a misconception that I didn't think should be spread around the boards as a "fact." Your definition was off, I corrected that, and simply gave a little more insight and detail on the subject, to help those who may have still had questions as to what an "opinion" or "fact" really was. I elaborated on theory some as well.

That is not a true opinion, that is a statement. Your second example with Guiness is a little closer to a real opinion.


If your first example had read:

I like chocolate ice cream! It's the best ice cream in the world!

or

I like chocolate ice cream! Everyone can agree it's the best!


then it would have been the most classic example of an opinion.


Here's some more fun examples for everyone!

Fact:

Pilgrims sailed on the ship "Mayflower"

Opinion:

Everyone had an enjoyable voyage.


Fact:

Maui is the second largest Hawaiian Island

Opinion:

Maui has the most beautiful beaches in the world


Definition of Opinion:

o·pin·ion

–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


Also, it is good to note that even things that are voted on or win the "majority" of favor and thus taken as "fact" can and are still opinions. For example, FHM's 'Most Beautiful Woman in the World' contest, or many other types of beauty contests, all culminate to a "majority opinion" but yet are taken at face value as somewhat of a "fact" given the media attention. When in reality not everyone is going to agree that the most beautiful woman won, yet one is dubbed as "most beautiful.


Where the poster may have stumbled is that he included a chunk of data, research, and numbers to support his claim in this thread. At that point he loses the ability to claim his point of view as a true "opinion" as he was possibly trying to pass it as "fact" due to evidence disclosure. However, this data was also included in a "discussion board" where posters are attempting to come up with the "worst" brute build. Due to this discussion setting and debate, it can be viewed as a question/debate phase not yet answered. Thus opinions or theories based on gathered and "known" fact can be claimed until an answer is found or at least unanimously decided upon. Such is the nature of this setting. Also, one can claim that due to the research they've found, that it is of their "opinion", but otherwise known as a "theory" at this point (theories are generally more driven by whatever facts are currently obtained where opinions are 100% based on feeling), that their belief is true. However, after real evidence is brought forward which contradicts that theory and proves it wrong, he can retract or remove his opinions altogether as they were made based on the data he had at the time.


the·o·ry

–noun, plural -ries.

1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result
2. abstract knowledge or reasoning
3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that

Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion.


Hope this helps!

There you go being "touchy Mr. BillZ" again.


Maybe you didn't read the threads I posted before your rather arrogant and self ego boosting thread hmm? Prior to your condescending response to my opinion on Claws, I don't think that I was in any way being touchy about anything. I responded to your first response to me with a bit of touchyness, but what did you expect with your written tone for one to react? Maybe you could use a class in being a tad more coordial or learn exactly what type of "tone" your written words can imply.


Need I remind you:

Your reply started off with at least some dignity and civility, but for some reason you felt the urge to add such condescendance, as though I directly said: "BillZ, you are WRONG, Claws is crap for damage, crap for ranged damage, and your family sucks." I mean seriously, relax.

I don't need to say whether or not my opinion was based on "feeling". Its quite clear that it was an "opinion" and not fact. Maybe you don't choose to absorb what you read? Let me quote it for you:

Hell Bill, I started off the friggen post and sentence with the fact that it was of MY opinion. An "opinion" is not an admittance of data, evidence, or fact. Here, definition for the thick:

o·pin·ion:

–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


So yes, I did declare from the start that my thoughts were based on "feelings", otherwise known as opinions. No where did I include number crunching or data mining to back my theory, as it was an experience felt "opinion." So, in response to the rude reply you gave me; had you not been so ignorant and noticed that I clearly stated that my posts were of opinion and not fact, then I wouldn't have had to come here and correct your false beliefs on what was actually being said.


BillZ, I think your problem is that for some odd reason you feel as though you're some sort of godsend to this videogame and forum, and lets not deny it, I see it with every snobby condescending post you ever type, which is a good portion of them. Especially when it comes to Claws, lord when it comes to Claws. In reality Bill, you're just some dude sitting behind a keyboard wasting his day away on the forums, trying to respond with some sort of "elitist" tone because it makes you feel as though possibly you're accomplishing something in life or somehow better by snobbing others. I'm positive that the brown gunk that sputters from your rear is just as smelly and nasty as the brown gunk that sputters from everyone elses, so don't imagine or act as though your rear end is the main supplier of roses on Valentines Day.


If you disagree with something someone has to say, fine, show your evidence and numbers to prove that your way is right and to back your case. There is no need to belittle or talk condescendingly to someone in order to disagree and prove your side. If the person you responded to decides to go off on you then at that point feel free to be rude, condescending, or just plain mean. It's that simple. Just because this is an online message forum does not mean that you can't practice some sort of civility. Its like a "road-rage" mentality around here: just because I'm not standing in front of you, I'm 10 feet tall and can be a ******, I don't need to be civil or even humane at all...I think that anyone can be better than that. Maybe even you.

Who are you again? And why are you fanning fires? Maybe you should just sit back and be quiet, the discussion is over. I had an opinion on something. BillZ wanted to to make it a numbers issue. That's fine, if he has numbers to back it thats awesome, do it. It simply sheds light onto certain subjects and allows others to draw their own conclusions based on those numbers and opinions combined. I just felt that he was being a bit touchy about it so I was informing him to relax some, but it really doesn't bother me, we have alot of people who get touchy here from time-to-time (myself included).


What you're doing here, that is whats really silly, as you're not even involved in our discussion, you're simply adding your 2 cents worth of nothing and futher derailing a thread. BillZ being touchy doesn't bother me at all since he has a valid argument with valid numbers, but what does bother me is people such as yourself. The input on your last post and its contribution to this thread had no useful impact whatsoever, so why add it? Other than to troll, fan fires, and completely derail a thread what's the purpose? You have none. So no need to add your 2 cents.