Look at the marked parts, do you, by chance, see why I am taking issue with your arguments?freshour wrote:I never said you were wrong. I understand it could be a chore. But you are not listening. If you can add an icd to something. You can also bypass the icd. The logic in what they have been able to do shows that it would be very possible lol. I mean usually the icd it self and making it work properly is where bugs happen. But we'll never know until someone speaks up.
That aside - if you have the time to nerf a classes damage in the range of 20-40% pending tactics/gear even if it was indirectly done (it was mainly to remove the proc meta) - it would be very very nice to hear about why, you know? Proc meta was stupid - it needed to go. But I searched for anyone mentioning that it directly nerfed dok's damage as heavy as it did and no one said anything. So I really don't think anyone knew.
Hence why I said I think they missed it in the first place. But we don't have to go back and forth. As soon as a higher power chimes in it should make it all pretty clear of if the damage will be returned to the DoK while the ICD remains in place for the other party members. If not, I'll just take it as a 30+% nerf to my spec and have fun in pug sc's with my DoK b/c it is clearly not a welcome spec lol.
If they missed it - they missed it -, if not they have opted not to for reasons that have, yet, not been elaborated and do not have to be elaborated given the circumstances I've hinted at several times in prior posts.
Besides that, if you account for honest mistakes, why would you ever consider it to be some kind animosity towards anything?
In other words, ask the (right) questions - don't load them up and answer them yourself; drop the conclusions.
Abbd.: Again, no offense intended whatsoever. Look at your posts from a devs perspective, just once - ask yourself how fair you handle the situation, all things (nature of the project, etc.) considered.
Abbd.:
"Do you consider seperate sets for ICDs?"
"Are you looking forward to working on substituting the procs with other things in the future?"
"Do you, by chance, have other plans with the class other than reworking aspect xyz of it?"
"Could you, please, for the sake of allevation of concerns and prevention of brawls (patience sake), issue a development rundown featuring your progress with client control and the likes?
"If yes (to any of this), when are you planning to implement them - can you give us an ETA, please?"
Anyone should be satisfied even with as much as a blant <yes> or <no> to any of these questions, the folks aren't getting paid afterall. And no, I am not brown-nosing - I do, however, acknowledge the fact that this project could potentially be dropped any second, without any explanation or headsup and without me having any claim to make whatsoever.
TLDR: It's not what you say, but how you say it.
E: Words and stuff.
