ok, see, this is the reason why I put text in red.Originally Posted by harky
from my post: ...And please pay attention to this, because you missed this like 5-10 times already,
Does this mean anything to you? To sum up, it's to emphasize. Is that really so hard to understand?
dude. GH1 takes 3 seconds to cast. FH takes 1.5.Honestly, here's where I stand:
You've yet to show any evidence against what I've said. That is that GH1 was higher efficiency than H4. That FH was inefficient and low throughput.
In trash, speed > efficiency, because you don't need to worry about running out of mana.
...that 1.5s faster outweights that in trash clearing. For Trash. If you have pay attention or even comprehend what's read, I wouldn't need to put the red text to draw your attention. Not like I enjoy wasting time putting red color stuff in. But that's like the only way for you to see it alot of times.
Lol, why don't you prove me wrong then. Simple logic, you think you know better than all guilds out there back then? I'll put $$ on *all* the raiding guilds instead of you. Nothing personal, just well, really? you need me to explain to you why that is?That you need high FR on most fights in MC. And so on. If it's so easy to disprove, then disprove it. Claiming that guilds know better than I do is fine, but please back it up with more than hearsay.
When you balance FR with T1? especially with some slots filled by regen gear?You've ignored that 'better gear' was actually T1 gear, which was MC gear. Full T1 + SP gears and 300 SP wasn't difficult in the least.
Not saying it's hard, but not the gear intended for T1 during progression. Which is what I was talking about, gear / experience before you out-content that said content.You'll also note that my original comment noted 'T2+' as being when SP was easy to obtain.
To be hones, it's not *easy*, hard or not, that depends on whom you asked. It was about right to me, not too easy, not too hard. A good balance IMO.The thing here is that you keep stating that something is not a big accomplishment, then making a very large deal out of the difficulty as a way to claim that the content was hard.
Just don't down-rate it because you use gear that make the content easier.
right.... is this part of your "politic debate" style? false accusations?It's nice that you can use big red text to make statements, but when the text following is contradictory all it amounts to is posturing.
Ah, then your assertion of 300+ in MC gear is just a *sometimes* you can get 300 SP, here's the red part again, so you pay attention on, when you sacrifices some stats. (say int, Fr...whatnot).No, high FR was not required for most of MC. Guilds required higher FR because there were places you would die instantly without it, not because you needed to wear it most of the time.
Sacrificing stats to just boost 1 stat isn't anything new, and what's the importance of that ability of that again? To show there are variety of gear?
You could even sacrifice everything and get high armor, high str too, but that's not the *norm* now is it?
Which is what we are talking about, the *norm*.
read above.No, SP was not hard to obtain pre-AQ, or even pre-BWL. If you didn't have a good non-resist set I can understand you not being aware of this, but don't mistake that for SP sets being useless, or hard to build.
Yes, why don't we look up downranking history:No, things like Heal-4, Lesser Heal of any rank, etc were not efficient, or needed. Look up the spell details yourself as well as old down-ranking mechanics, such as the level 20 rule if you want evidence.
Of course, I'll put stuff in red, so you know what to look for
"Downranking described the usage of spell ranks lower than the highest one in order to increase damage or healing per mana spent, or for the use of a secondary, rank-independent effect, in trade for a lower amount of damage or healing. For healers, this was sometimes necessary to prevent overhealing. Mana reservation was the desired aim. In most circumstances, downranking is no longer a viable tactic.
Downranking has been nerfed several times. The first time, it was nerfed so that any spell learned below level 20 suffered a penalty. Then, with patch 2.0.1, it was nerfed again so that any spell of a certain number of levels too low was nerfed.
The most severe nerf was introduced with the release of patch 3.0.2, which caused player spells to cost a percentage of the caster's base mana, which either remained constant for all ranks or decreased with higher ranks.
In addition to voluntary downranking, when a buff spell is cast on a character whose level is too low to receive that buff, the character will receive a downranked version of the buff instead. "
And heal 4 wasn't nerfed until 2.0.1. It was advantageous to use it. (although, I have to note, I really don't remember when the level 20 rule was in place, /shrug)
Read, trash. Actually, since you seemed only to take in things that red, here it is in red:No, Flash Heal was not something that you should have been using. It lost in terms of throughput and efficiency to GH1.
Interesting, do define more of this "logistic" that you mean?As far as 'semantics', people often get confused, or just misguided into thinking bringing up semantics, or grammar is bad.
You mean it as the symbolic logic? Or the overall procedure to get the raid of 40 together?
let's assume you mean latter:
beyond Logistic, there are things like,
1)priority in raid base on seniority,
2)loots distributing rules
3) connection quality of some players in consideration to bring player in or not.
All those above has nothing to do with getting people there, more how a guild works and how to choose from the set resource a guild has.
That, dear, is over and above mere, "logistics". And were part of the big reasons why 40 people raid failed. To ignore all those and band it as "logistic" is just, wrong. Or you didn't understand either "logistic" or "guild management". Take your pick.
And very much reasons why the 40 sized failed. Getting people together is just a subset of guild management. You know, like recruiting, retaining, discipline of guild...etc.
lalalalala... read above.So, to argue semantics some more... Semantics is the study of meaning. If semantics are brought up because someone does not understand a term being used, then it's completely valid. Logistics was the main concern when raiding in Vanilla and to some extent BC.
That's been greatly toned down and in Cata they're planning to tone it down more (10 mans drop 25 man loot, among other things).
hypocritical? hahaha.... You are confused. Guess I should put this in red too since you can't seemed to notice all the things but red text.If you know what logistics means and implies, then why would you argue that 'logistics' wasn't a problem, but 'guild management' was? I wasn't arguing semantics at all, you were. My point in bringing that up was to show how hypocritical your argument was. Though, the fact that you missed that shouldn't be surprising too me when combined with the rest of your posts.
1) I really don't care if you did or did not went to MC / BWL back then
2) If you didn't but pretend you did, then I like to point it out.
3) *This is the important one, as this require you to take in some logic.* Since pointing it out, (aka #2) require to analyze that if you really did or not, that's why a carefully assessment is needed. And hence the importance falling on examining if you did have the experience or not, which inevitably going into the details of these stuff. Not the experience by itself is that much of important. Read it again, if you still don't understand.
Or is this your "political debate" style at work again? :
Yes, I see you have trouble with alot of things. I guess keeping your mouth shut to clear the doubt was one of them. Along with inability to pay attention to anything but red text. To comprehend the post before you make a reply. To use your "political debate" style in replying. My condolence.Oh and for being 'done', well, I have trouble keeping my mouth shut when people don't understand how to properly make an argument. It's a pet peeve, I suppose.