Still no balance a year later - with facts

read my previous post please

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

I remember the OP's name and their posts. Most probably wouldn't.

They would have been better served just giving feedback without prefacing it with a whole lot of unrelated personal gripes.

I find it interesting that they've attacked the Shadow when the Shadow's redesign has been overwhelmingly well-received. Oh well.

I remember you also. One of the few sensible people on these forums in my opinion, it's fortunate that you haven't lost your touch for being well founded in reality.

I did add too many personal gripes I agree, but just going off of what we can see in this thread... I've added a long list of facts going way back into March. Other people, who have largely posted here "opposing" the idea of ... balance in the game? For what? And what is their point of view based on? They have what to support their case? Anything at all?

As you can see, there's a clear lack of common sense in this forum and it is extremely annoying and hasn't changed much in the last year. Hence the gripes.

As for why I attacked the shadow, I simply chose the ground my knowledge leads me to. I'd love to provide support for marauders being terrible at higher levels of play, but I don't have 3+ posts going back into March to support that claim like I do with shadows.

"

baumpaul wrote:

read my previous post please

Your previous post about what? How balance doesn't matter in POE? Support that claim with anything, I challenge you. Just another case of spewing, from my point of view. You're welcome to prove me wrong and nothing would silence me faster.

ok i see another guy with some low level expirience is thinking he knows how the game is working, nvm and sorry for posting in your thread, i didnt checked you befor posting...

"

baumpaul wrote:

ok i see another guy with some low level expirience is thinking he knows how the game is working, nvm and sorry for posting in your thread, i didnt checked you befor posting...

Bahaha, there it is. The obvious ad-hominem we all knew was incoming from somebody. Because what else can you do when you have nothing to support your claims and all the actual facts and evidence stacks against you? There's always a fallback. Lol.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

Again, FACTS. 0 surviving shadows in top 40 is a FACT, not an opinion with a bunch of conjecture as to why that is. It is a FACT that has remained true since at least before March.

You need to pull your head out of your ass if you're going to use the word "FACTS". Surviving in Beyond was a Shadow at rank 31. In fact, I count 8 surviving shadows in the top 100. So, quit making shit up about ZERO and calling it FACTS.

The shadow area of the tree was designed to be less defense oriented than other classes. It's more about offense. It's less popular I'm HC because of this. This game isn't balanced around HC, and you using HC stats is thus a moot point.

"

SL4Y3R wrote:

The shadow area of the tree was designed to be less defense oriented than other classes. It's more about offense. It's less popular I'm HC because of this. This game isn't balanced around HC, and you using HC stats is thus a moot point.

I'm sorry, what don't you understand about FACTS???

hermergerd /thread

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

Again, FACTS. 0 surviving shadows in top 40 is a FACT, not an opinion with a bunch of conjecture as to why that is. It is a FACT that has remained true since at least before March.

Other classes being able to do any build just as well? Aside from being FACTUALLY inaccurate, it's also conjecture which you can't support with anything besides an opinion.

Stop saying the words "FACTS" when you try to put up your opinions. No shadow in top 40 Beyond = FACT. Your interpretations of these are not FACTS at all. Some people tried to explain you here why "no Shadow in top 40" (FACTS) doesn't mean the Shadow sucks balls. They didn't say your FACTS are wrong, they are discussing your interpretation of the FACTS with their interpretations based on the same FACTS. But you just chose to call them stupid.

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

Again, FACTS. 0 surviving shadows in top 40 is a FACT, not an opinion with a bunch of conjecture as to why that is. It is a FACT that has remained true since at least before March.

You need to pull your head out of your ass if you're going to use the word "FACTS". Surviving in Beyond was a Shadow at rank 31. In fact, I count 8 surviving shadows in the top 100. So, quit making shit up about ZERO and calling it FACTS.

At first I thought someone finally died and some positions moved around, but no, you just completely made this shit up and then accused me of misrepresenting data. There is no shadow at position 31 in beyond ladder, 31 is currently a dead witch, and there still are no shadows in the top 40 left alive.

Why you are even allowed to post when you go around talking about everyone's head being up their ass and then completely making this stuff up is beyond me.