Originally Posted by Elistan Theocrat
Actually it was quite simple, I responded to the inane comments that you seem to have omitted in your response to me. You know the ones where you laid down a rule, I belive it was your third rule, which stated that I was not to say what was intended and what was not, dispite the fact that your very first rule argued that using a skill as intended is not an exploit. You actually said that I could not read minds and that I should not pretend to, but apparently your rules only apply to those who disagree with you.
Failing to have an answer for any one of the points that invalidate your points you then choose to give up the argument entirely and insult me. FTW!!! lol. |
2 - I can't for the life of me see how you can mix two completely separate arguments and claim they refute or contradict one another. It's not MY fault you failed reading comprehension 101. The first was explaining that an exploit is not a skill that to some people's opinion is "overpowered". That's an opinion, not an exploit. I can't help it if you don't know the difference between an exploit and an unbalanced (in some people's opinion, again) skill.
3 - Does or does not the skill work according to it's description?
While you maintain this "Enchantment", target ally cannot take more than 5% damage at one time. When Protective Bond prevents damage, you lose 6-3 energy or the spell ends.
What part of that description doesn't meet the qualifications of the skill not working properly? Is it or is it NOT? Does it or doesn't it work exactly as it says it does?
If it does, it's not "broken", nor is it an exploit. It may or may not fit your idea of what game balance is, or not, but that's your OPINION. It also is working as intended the developers wished, simply because it works as advertised. There are no hidden bonuses, or it makes you lose less or more health, or fails to stop working when it says it would.
Please do not lecture me on what *I* wrote, as you're failing miserably.
Now, about reading the dev team's mind. I JUST provided a description of a skill straight from the developers. The skill works as written. You can NOT argue (well, you could if you're a moron) that the developers didn't INTEND for the skill to work in the fashion it does, as it works exactly as they say it should. This does NOT violate any rule I wrote. I said to provide direct proof from a dev that the skill isn't working as intended yet claim *you* know what the development team thinks. HOW? Where is your proof?
I'm still waiting for your proof, instead of rehashing your OPINION.