You are not understanding what I am writing, and you are arguing with something I have not said. I will try to clarify for you. I do not know what changes were made to assassinate and I assumed they were well executed, but if you say they were not I believe you. If you are right that is another argument for not intervening.. it can ruin more than it fixes
You're not understanding me. Assassinate has not been changed. It is still bad. It's not an argument for "not intervening". It is an argument FOR intervening.
Stabbey, I feel you are acting contrarian and arguing for the sake of arguing with these statements. I have made my case, this is how I feel about it and you are not qualified to change my mind.
Saying that I am only arguing for the sake of being contrary implies that you believe that I secretly agree with you.
That is not the case. I am arguing with you because I do not agree with your opinion because your opinion
does not make sense. You are basing that on a game which has had probably thousands of changes made for the sake of balance to get to the state which you are praising and saying, in essence "this does not need more balance changes". It could not possibly have reached that state without the kind of balance changes you are arguing shouldn't be done.
