You deconstructed nothing I said. You realised you couldn't do that, so you went and stated I've gone on a tangent to the topic of the thread. Which is your subjective opinion. If you want it even simpler, CC is mentioned in the thread, so anything based on, or around, CC is valid. The armour suggestion was based around CC. You've basically turned somersaults trying to say armour is not a valid topic here because you don't have the wits to counter me directly on it.
There's a thread called 'Game was great then this happen...' in the general forum, which was about how enemy ambushes was frustrating the OP. Your last post on this thread is about CC.
Do you not see the irony in this? You couldn't have been more off topic by bringing CC into a thread that had nothing to do with CC, and yet you twist yourself in knots trying to childishly outdo me by saying my post about CC & armour has nothing to do with a post that was about CC in the first place.
Hypocrite, much?
Your grammar is irrelevant. It's your inability to fluidly and efficiently form a logical sentence that's the problem. You mostly make no sense whatsoever. And I also suspect that you're aware you've shot yourself in the foot, but just aren't man enough to admit it. Ho-hum. No skin off my back, mate.
So you really want to play the hypocrite card?
Alright, just so it's clear:
The OP complained about an ambush
In said ambush he was CCd to death
Discussion following the fact that this is bad took place
Discussion on how to prevent said event from repeating took place
See how that flows? Also, take note of the fact that I didn't deign to create a debate on the validity of my discussions. I wouldn't have. You apparently feel the need to do.
I make no sense? Riiiiiight. Cause you cant follow billet point thoughts. You need a step by step by play between each that's a paragraphing to explain the transition.
And the most amusing part? You keep falling into the same trap. You can't refute my points so you ineffectually try to invalidate the fact that they can/should be made at all.
You're desperately arguing a non-point. Something not even worth consideration cause it holds no baring on the current topic of conversation: was the armor system discussion on point to the original focus of the thread?
It's a simple question.
Now you want to say it's subjective. That is so non substansive it's hilarious. I readily backed up my view with a critical analysis of the original post. The whole thing I might add. Not one or two words (i.e. "CC" and "manageable") taken out of context and thrown into a vacuum.
In your very generally, non-contextual, interpretation? Those words can mean whatever you want.
By that same logic I can bring up elemental talents and discuss why I think the fire demon talent needs more work.
