This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Lvling PvP Rogue Questions.

Post by goshadstep2lose

viable: suitably or effectively capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are

so, viable. I fixed your definition so it is relevant to the subject at hand

also:
such

and once again, youre assuming im making an argument against muti/prep and sub... they are better, i dont deny that, and never have. never have I made the statement or insinuated that you thought combat was better than mutiprep or sub

(although one could easily come to the conclusion you originally were, before present evidence was presented before you)

and you commenting on my bg experiences like you know what happens in them is hilarious. those three things happen enough for me to enjoy pvping as combat. and how often do you play your rogue?

are you sure that you just arent glorifying a few encounters with terrible opponents or gauging your (anecdotal) evidence on being carried in bgs by your surrounding team mates?

not a dodge to say you have butt secs with people on these forums. if you think Im butt raping anyone other than you right now you have a crazy case of denial

(OT: for the record Im still aware you were abusing idioms, but I do like the smokescreen you've built for yourself)

also: ya dood! the dodge I called you on totally wasn't refering to any of those other arguments... it was that one about butts and stuf!

Post by 243770

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

you call trying to bring the argument to what its actually about a dodge. yes, because, what you conveniently decided "its actually about", after already basically making arguments otherwise, isn't actually whats it about.

Suggesting a specific way of doing something as viable or fun you are comparing (ergo making an argument against) it to the other specific, more commonly practiced and well established ways of doing it.

i play combat on my rogue for pvp. I play it for fun. I have fun. It is certainly capable of accomplishing enough to have fun. assuming what you are accomplishing pvp after having no basic knowledge of the other ways of doing is an extreme bias on your opinion of what is fun and viable

you saw killing spree (or any other attractive combat talent), assumed it would be nuts for pvp/BGs, and based all your post assumptions on rogue PvP based on your preformed opinion (with little, or no, attempts at the other two, well established, trees)

and yes, shad, youre totally raping me, because you can prove that i dont have fun playing combat. good one. the point:
you missed it (or dodged it)

you said "combat was fun (and viable)"
not that combat was fun for you specifically (the clarifier changes the meaning, you see)

you also said that it wins
ftw
when it clearly does none of the sort in PvP

i played both muti/prep and sub before settling on duel specced muti/prep and combat both pvp specs. i play muti/prep for arena, and combat for bgs for fun.
so you say

surely you couldn't be lying about trying something, that you long ago decided was a waste of time (but omg dood! rouge bladestorm!1), for the sake of strengthening your position

impossible...

you're original support betrays you...

if you were to have seriously tried mutilate... or even shadowdance... you would have been full aware of how weak and unimpressive your original support for combat was
you failed to mention any of the crippling weaknesses of combat (extremely poor cp generation, extremely poor control, extremely poor burst, very poor mobility, extremely poor damage against anything other than cloth , extremely poor survivability , retardedly high gear requirements regardless of what you are stacking to preform even the simplest of tasks...)
An unbiased observer would have defiantly mentioned at least one of them in a thread to a new player

so, no, at no point (before you presented arguments) did i suggest that combat was anything other than fun. viable

but somehow, lol, you will think you "won" this argument, because you proved to a noob that combat is #$%^ing worthless. after another noob tried to sully my good information with his misled glorification of another spec?

...yea, I think its safe to say I won

Post by goshadstep2lose

this is probably the substance talking but I feel like that was one of my masterpieces

Post by 243770

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

definitely the substance.
dodge

Post by 243770

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

nothing to dodge. you cant change the fact that i enjoy combat for pvp. you have no argument, lol. get over it.

me not having an argument

also:
dodge

Post by 243770

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

oh yes, i agree, you can make an argument out of nothing. how you manage to write so much from my attempts at supporting "combat is inherently fun for pvp (and also viable)" shouldn't surprise me.
fixed

and thank you... your complete inability to respond to even my (seemingly) more ludicrous responses confirms my suspicions

Post by 243770

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

yep combat is fun for pvp (for me, might not be fun for others) except thats not what you based your argument on until I clarified how week it was

and you based your "fun for me" completely on your lack of experience with the other two trees

and viable (although definitely not the best: see definition of viable), for above noted arguments. suitably or effectively capable
it is not

Post by 243770

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

yep, i said it was fun (for me implied, since im the one saying it, hence my opinion).

op: "hey guys what spec is good for PvP?"
me: "mutilate and sub heres why..."
op: "thanks man!"
me: "np"
you: "combat ftw!"
me: "combats bad for pvp"
you: "nuh uh bro! rogue bladestorm!1"
me: "combat is still bad heres why..."
you: "but, but, but- rogue bladestorm!1"

where exactly did you imply it before you lost the argument?

you dont know anything about my experiences with the other two trees.you're original support betrays you...

if you were to have seriously tried mutilate... or even shadowdance... you would have been full aware of how weak and unimpressive your original support for combat was
you failed to mention any of the crippling weaknesses of combat (extremely poor cp generation, extremely poor control, extremely poor burst, very poor mobility, extremely poor damage against anything other than cloth , extremely poor survivability , retardedly high gear requirements regardless of what you are stacking to preform even the simplest of tasks...)
An unbiased observer would have defiantly mentioned at least one of them in a thread to a new player

viable: capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are pick and choose your definitions more, but go to the warrior forums and suggest arms is viable raiding spec... or sub in the rogue forums... or disc/holy dps in the priest forums... or frost in the mage forums...

While this argument is nothing but semantics- the basic player understanding of the term is that deliberately gimping yourself when there are much, much better ways of doing things, isn't viable

Post by 243770

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

"combat ftw" was an interjection into the conversation, simply implying what i outright stated later: that combat inherently was fun.

If i had said "although theres been some good things said about sub and mut, i think that combat is actually better", then yeh, flame me all over the place, because its obviously not. this just in: there are multiple ways to get a message across, and defending a poor message with one that's even worse isn't going to get you anywhere

I know that because ive played all 3 trees.so you say

viable means what it means: capable of being done. 1/2/3 is also viable by your irrelevant definition
so it should also be mentioned

Post by 243770

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by goshadstep2lose

this just in: i wasnt trying to get anywhere. I was interjecting my opinion (PVP DISCUSSION FORUMS). exactly

and the discussion at hand is "How should I pvp effectively?" not "lavatsunami makes extremely misleading comments"

oh and quit trying to fall back on the "it was an opinion" excuse-
you didn't present it as such until to were no long able to continue to defend combats effectiveness in PvP

you arent fooling anyone, and Im not going to let you cop out so easily

you assuming i havent played all 3 trees is kind of hilarious for someone who supposedly only uses logic. no logic in assumptions. assumptions don't inherently lack logic, yours may, but despite your continuous attempts to dodge it
you're original support betrays you...

if you were to have seriously tried mutilate... or even shadowdance... you would have been full aware of how weak and unimpressive your original support for combat was
you failed to mention any of the crippling weaknesses of combat (extremely poor cp generation, extremely poor control, extremely poor burst, very poor mobility, extremely poor damage against anything other than cloth , extremely poor survivability , retardedly high gear requirements regardless of what you are stacking to preform even the simplest of tasks...)
An unbiased observer would have defiantly mentioned at least one of them in a thread to a new player

I have more than enough logic to back up my assumtions

blizzard spent time on designing all 3 trees, and they put pvp only talents in combat for a reason. and they put pve talents in sub, frost, arms, BM... and dps talents into disc, holy, and resto

whats your point?
the purpose of a talent has nothing to do with how good it is

unless you think unfair advantage is for rogue tanks? well, yes actually: it shines in solo PvE (especially leveling

so, no, 1/2/3 is nothing like an actual spec. talents are spent... and it is doable

so by your (extra emphasis on the your) definition of viable, any spec is viable, and it is therefor irrelevant to support a spec as such

Post by Frames

So what makes muti do so much more damage against plate?

just these three talents?

Post by goshadstep2lose

at your level just this one and this one, but at 80, these two combined with envenom compound the damage against plate

Lvling PvP Rogue Questions.

Post Reply