Nabutso wrote:
Fidelcashflow wrote:
THIS WHOLE POST IS LITERALLY THE STUPIDEST SHIT I THINK I'VE EVER READ!!!!!!?!?!!!
You really think sneak / invis only lasted for 1-4 minutes on retail???? HOLY FUCKING SHIT... Problem solved here... Who do I need to talk to that actually knows what they are talking about.
you legitimately never touched retail in your entire life.
Every single WHM, RDM, etc, remembers casting sneak or invis and immediately seeing the "Sneak/Invis is about to wear off" message on at least one occasion.
Yeah, never ever saw that, guess I was just lucky, or maybe when I played the base duration was increased (probably this as sometime around 2009 the duration is posted as ~5mins), but I never had an instant wearing off message.
Nabutso wrote:
exelyon wrote:
Fidelcashflow wrote:
Yeah, it was SE's nerf, just because the numbers are switched around you feel it's any different, it isn't. But instead of us trying to convince you, why don't you convince us? Why don't you go gather 250 pages of spreadsheet data and prove to us that it's an overall buff, or at the very least not a nerf? Until then I'm convinced you are just preaching because you can't tolerate being told you are wrong.
Yep this is the problem. Not even nas has tested this enough to say it isnt a nerf. Both sides are subjectively deciding how this balances out. But we asked if it was a nerf and were told it wasnt. Next time, maybe "it's a nerf and maybe a buff to offset it." Nas can do whathe wants, and we'll react accordingly; but if youre going to make yourself his spokesperson, and you want us to listen to what you have to say, you need to do a better job, nabutso.
It's tough when nas tells me I can't be specific about it, you know.
Yeah, but
YOU can be specific about the data
YOU gather to prove everyone here wrong. Because currently it's looking bleak sir. GL to you.
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
