Mists of Pandaria

Can we all please put the e-peens back in the pants?

We all know PvP is srs bsns but this is getting so pathetic it's starting to get past the point of being hilarious.

I'm sorry my discussions don't fit your likings, I'll take them somewhere more suited for game related discussions, like a "Game Related" subboard on a WoW-minded forum or something.

Oh wait.

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:I'm sorry my discussions don't fit your likings, I'll take them somewhere more suited for game related discussions, like a "Game Related" subboard on a WoW-minded forum or something.

Oh wait.

Have an internets for that.

*bonks head on keyboard several times* OK PEOPLE. CALM THE FUCK DOWN. CUZ. TRUST ME, I'M A HEALER...! Oh wait...

No really, calm down. It -is- going abit over the edge, it's not ment to a be a warr, is it? Also, I'd agree with Ix, in mostly everything, Warriors will still be -good- in 5.2, it's not like they're nerfing the shit outta you. Stop complaining, Warriors -ARE- OP this expansion, and I doubt they will be as bad as they were in Cata ever again. So pack down the rage.
Rogues had it extreamly bad this patch, pop a freaking shockwave on me, and hit me twice, and I would be dead, unless I used some cd, which dosen't even do much. Rogues needed the buff, and luckily they got it. Warriors needed nerf, they got it. Druids cyclone needed a nerf, and they got it. Just calm the fuck down. Thank you.

PVP LOL

erwtenpeller wrote:PVP LOL

I would just like to congragulate you on passing 3136 posts my friend

--------------------------------------------------------

apart from the frothing rage I mostly agree with Ix. I sped read through everything, but Cid really you are over-exaggerating

perturbo wrote:

erwtenpeller wrote:PVP LOL

I would just like to congragulate you on passing 3136 posts my friend

Thanks. This shit is hard work, son.

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:I'm sorry my discussions don't fit your likings, I'll take them somewhere more suited for game related discussions, like a "Game Related" subboard on a WoW-minded forum or something.

Oh wait.

Your "discussions" are nothing but rage, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. You might want to work on that if you want people to a) take you seriously and b) listen to what have to say.

Also, I'm sure people in the 1600s are sweeping statements on people based on their ranking. Really.

To be fair rating does have a lot to say, just like how grades say how much you know about a certain subject. You're much more likely to find accurate and correct information and arguments coming from higher rated players than the lower rated ones as they've much more experience within the subject. I won't comment on the other stuff though.

Gor'Thrak Frosthowl wrote:To be fair rating does have a lot to say, just like how grades say how much you know about a certain subject. You're much more likely to find accurate and correct information and arguments coming from higher rated players than the lower rated ones as they've much more experience within the subject. I won't comment on the other stuff though.

The difference between 1600s and 1500s is minimal.

I never mentioned specific ratings, I just said a general rule of thumb. Still though, who are you talking about when you say 1600? From what I can see Ix has atleast 2k experience.

I do indeed have the 2k achievement + near glad rating experience from TBC on some shit BG I don't even remember, so yeh. But I digress, it must be much easier for you to just look at the inactive rogue mage druid (lol rogue S12) team I played 20 games with to 1600 before quitting WoW and just assume that's the highest rating I've ever achieved. That makes for much better ammo when you want to discredit me without knowing what you're talking about, anyways.

Also, it's not an e-peen measure. It's a measure of experience. I could also mention the fact that across the 3 characters I've actively PVPed with I have played >4000 arena matches and achieved 2k rating on 2 different classes, which compared to the 380 Cìd has played is a pretty clear indicator that I have more experience (and thus am more likely to have better insight in how PVP works) than he has.

And finally, I don't post here because I want you to take me seriously. I post here to voice my opinion. If you think I'm ridiculous I have no reason to want you to take me seriously or listen to what I have to say. I am, however, stating facts in this thread. Which again further works to make your opinion of my statements even more irrelevant; what I'm saying is a pretty ultimate truth. When 1 class has the best of pretty much everything, which warriors had at MOP launch, they are OP no matter how many bad warriors get soloed by warlocks while AFK or how many mediocre warriors get kited to infinity by mages.

Contrary to what most people seem to think, being good at this game actually takes skill, and when a warrior in S12 with 380 games that never broke 1500 rating is arguing that his class is not OP, it's a pretty clear indicator that the player is the problem, not the game.

Lini wrote:Your "discussions" are nothing but rage, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. You might want to work on that if you want people to a) take you seriously and b) listen to what have to say.

Here, have an internet.

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:I do indeed have the 2k achievement + near glad rating experience from TBC on some shit BG I don't even remember, so yeh. But I digress, it must be much easier for you to just look at the inactive rogue mage druid (lol rogue S12) team I played 20 games with to 1600 before quitting WoW and just assume that's the highest rating I've ever achieved. That makes for much better ammo when you want to discredit me without knowing what you're talking about, anyways.

Also, it's not an e-peen measure. It's a measure of experience. I could also mention the fact that across the 3 characters I've actively PVPed with I have played >4000 arena matches and achieved 2k rating on 2 different classes, which compared to the 380 Cìd has played is a pretty clear indicator that I have more experience (and thus am more likely to have better insight in how PVP works) than he has.

And finally, I don't post here because I want you to take me seriously. I post here to voice my opinion. If you think I'm ridiculous I have no reason to want you to take me seriously or listen to what I have to say. I am, however, stating facts in this thread. Which again further works to make your opinion of my statements even more irrelevant; what I'm saying is a pretty ultimate truth. When 1 class has the best of pretty much everything, which warriors had at MOP launch, they are OP no matter how many bad warriors get soloed by warlocks while AFK or how many mediocre warriors get kited to infinity by mages.

Contrary to what most people seem to think, being good at this game actually takes skill, and when a warrior in S12 with 380 games that never broke 1500 rating is arguing that his class is not OP, it's a pretty clear indicator that the player is the problem, not the game.

I'm not trying to discredit you. In fact, I haven't commented on the warrior discussion even once. I don't care about that.

What I care about is you throwing around insults, sweeping statements and opinions disguised as facts and "ultimate truths" in hopes of somehow getting your point across. You may have more experience than Cid. You may have higher rankings than himm. You may even know more about what you're talking about than him. All that doesn't matter if all you can do is throw tantrums because things aren't going your way and people aren't agreeing with you.

Have some pictures.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Ironicly your post is a strawman argument if I've ever seen one, Lini.

...And an Ad Honimen, even, since the fact that he's allegedly being a dick doesn't make his argument invalid, or even worse; in fact, many theorists would argue that it makes the argument better and more effective.

The wisest internet posters are those that can read something they don't like and then not respond to it. It's best to keep the savvy pedantic theory-throwing outside, I find.

Pao wrote:Ironicly your post is a strawman argument if I've ever seen one, Lini.

The wisest internet posters are those that can read something they don't like and then not respond to it.

Nah, it's an ad hominem. Intentionally so.

Lini wrote:

Pao wrote:Ironicly your post is a strawman argument if I've ever seen one, Lini.

The wisest internet posters are those that can read something they don't like and then not respond to it.

Nah, it's an ad hominem. Intentionally so.

YEAH I'M COMMITING LOGICAL FALLACIES BUT I DO IT ON PURPOSE SO IT'S OKAY #IMAFUCKINGHYPOCRIT #YOLO #SWAGLOL

gg

I also fail to see where I commit Ad Hominem, my only discrediting arguement was "You're wrong so you're wrong."

Ixirar/Kavalis wrote:

Lini wrote:

Pao wrote:Ironicly your post is a strawman argument if I've ever seen one, Lini.

The wisest internet posters are those that can read something they don't like and then not respond to it.

Nah, it's an ad hominem. Intentionally so.

YEAH I'M COMMITING LOGICAL FALLACIES BUT I DO IT ON PURPOSE SO IT'S OKAY #IMAFUCKINGHYPOCRIT #YOLO #SWAGLOL

gg

I agree with this.

Also, I should stop editting my posts in active threads...It always leads to an ugly mess. Like now it almost seems like I corrected myself after the post was made in reply to my own while reality I edited it directly after posting it, without looking at the replies that may have come after.

Forum etiquette, eh?

Pao wrote:Ironicly your post is a strawman argument if I've ever seen one, Lini.

...And an Ad Honimen, even, since the fact that he's allegedly being a dick doesn't make his argument invalid, or even worse; in fact, many theorists would argue that it makes the argument better and more effective.

The wisest internet posters are those that can read something they don't like and then not respond to it. It's best to keep the savvy pedantic theory-throwing outside, I find.

Invalidating his argument or not, being a dick is still being a dick.

Yes, but don't make him seem he's a dick for any intellectual reason, making yourself seem smart, important and morally benign (while it seems more malicious to me) Just call him a dick and be done with it.

Basicly, don't be a dick about calling people dicks, because it makes you out to be a dick.

Me calling people out for calling people out on being dicks also, you guessed it, made me a dick.

Pao wrote:Yes, but don't make him seem he's a dick for any intellectual reason, just call him a dick.

Basicly, don't be a dick about calling people dicks, because it makes you out to be a dick.

Me calling people out for calling people out on being dicks also, you guessed it, made me a dick.

But I enjoy being a dick to dicks.

(This is getting very phallic all of a sudden...)

That makes you a bigger dick than the dicks you call out on being dicks.

Which makes me an even bigger dick for calling you out on it.

I am a motherfucking martyr of dickishness.

Because it's alright that you enjoy being a dick to me but when I'm a dick to Cìd (who in turn was a dick to me too if anything), I'm a monster and the MOP thread MUST be derailed to discuss wether or not I'm a dick instead of shutting the hell up with your incessant whining about my attitude...

There's more dicks on this forum then there typically are in gay gangbang porn.