Why did I die?

[deven1313]

I was on my 18 Necro in Unrest MR when things went south from a bad pull. The group decided to flee so I took off towards the zone. I left my summoned pet there to fight so I could get some distance between me and the mobs. I got far enough away to cast FD which succeeded (no fail message.) A few seconds later, I was attacked and promptly killed by those same mobs.

Why did I die when FD worked? I'm guessing it had to do with my pet but I'm hoping to understand the mechanics of how this works. Thanks!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There is no fail message for FD. You need to /con the mobs to check if your FD succeded or failed. They should con indifferent if it worked. It sounds like FD simply failed and you didn't know.

This doesn't apply to your situation, but if you are actively autoattacking a mob when you FD, that can cause FD to fail as well. You need to turn autoattack off before attenpting to FD.

[deven1313]

There is no fail message for FD. You need to /con the mobs to check if your FD succeded or failed. They should con indifferent if it worked. It sounds like FD simply failed and you didn't know.

This doesn't apply to your situation, but if you are actively autoattacking a mob when you FD, that can cause FD to fail as well. You need to turn autoattack off before attenpting to FD.

The fail message I'm referring to is, "you have fallen to the ground" which means FD failed, no? I did not get that message.

[Jimjam]

You had auto attack turned off?

No spells landed on you after you FDed?

[enjchanter]

I was on my 18 Necro in Unrest MR when things went south from a bad pull. The group decided to flee so I took off towards the zone. I left my summoned pet there to fight so I could get some distance between me and the mobs. I got far enough away to cast FD which succeeded (no fail message.) A few seconds later, I was attacked and promptly killed by those same mobs.

Why did I die when FD worked? I'm guessing it had to do with my pet but I'm hoping to understand the mechanics of how this works. Thanks!

If you stood up while ur pet was still aggrod then you get the aggro right back

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The fail message I'm referring to is, "you have fallen to the ground" which means FD failed, no? I did not get that message.

Interesting! I never noticed that actually. Looking over a few years worth of logs going back to 2019, I've only gotten this message 69 times on my SK. They all indeed seem to occur during a failed FD. I am a bit surprised if I have only failed FD 69 times in 4 years worth of logs.

I need to look deeper into my logs and see if there are any failed FD's without that message. Perhaps the message only shows up if you are close to other mobs? It's just a wild guess though.

[deven1313]

You had auto attack turned off?

No spells landed on you after you FDed?

Correct

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Correct

Yeah I would advise to always /con mobs after FD, regardless of whether you get the "fallen to the ground" message or not. That is a guaranteed way to know if FD worked or not.

[deven1313]

If you stood up while ur pet was still aggrod then you get the aggro right back

Hmm.. this seems the most likely cause thus far. I'm not sure if I stood up or not and it's not seen in the logs. Just to confirm though, if you have a pet engaged and you FD, it should clear aggro even though pet is still fighting and dies, correct?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Hmm.. this seems the most likely cause thus far. I'm not sure if I stood up or not and it's not seen in the logs. Just to confirm though, if you have a pet engaged and you FD, it should clear aggro even though pet is still fighting and dies, correct?

Oh actually what it probably was is the mobs haven't reset to their original spawn points yet. If you FD successfully but then get up while the mobs are still pathing back, they will re-agro often times. You normally need to wait until they path back fully.

[Keebz]

Yes, FD has a failure message /facepalm

If you stand while your pet is still fighting mobs will re-aggro you regardless.

Mobs under level 35 will blur (aka forget about you) on a successful FD and you don't need to wait for them path back.

If the mobs are above level 35, there is a small percent chance (20?) that they blur, but not guaranteed.

If one mob is not blurred it may social the rest.

In your case you probably either stood before your pet was dead or there was a 35+ mob in the pack that didn't blur.

[deven1313]

Yes, FD has a failure message /facepalm

If you stand while your pet is still fighting mobs will re-aggro you regardless.

Mobs under level 35 will blur (aka forget about you) on a successful FD and you don't need to wait for them path back.

If the mobs are above level 35, there is a small percent chance (20?) that they blur, but not guaranteed.

If one mob is not blurred it may social the rest.

In your case you probably either stood before your pet was dead or there was a 35+ mob in the pack that didn't blur.

Great info, thanks.

[Toxigen]

if you want to be really sure just /q while FD'd in a safe spot

statics reset np its the roamer that'll get ya

[Troxx]

There is no fail message for FD.

lol dude has a level 60 shadowknight…

I should add this to my sig.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

lol dude has a level 60 shadowknight…

I should add this to my sig.

I am not sure why you think it's a problem. In 4 years of logs the message only came up 69 times. I don't even know what chat filter it's assigned to. Clearly it isn't something you see every day.

/con the mob is more reliable anyway, as you get information that is more up to date.

Unlike yourself, I don't claim to know everything.

Putting it in your signature just makes it even easier to tell other people you are a troll. Why would people want to interact with you when you act like that?

[Troxx]

And a 52 monk!

https://reactiongifs.me/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/S36QsAbHn6yI9seDZ7V8aA/585285e4-c84c-4d48-2fac-d0d2ab8df800/w=220

[Jimjam]

Oh actually what it probably was is the mobs haven't reset to their original spawn points yet. If you FD successfully but then get up while the mobs are still pathing back, they will re-agro often times. You normally need to wait until they path back fully.

That is only an issue for lvl 35+ mobs tho, right? Below that they totally forget you as soon as fd succeeds?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

That is only an issue for lvl 35+ mobs tho, right? Below that they totally forget you as soon as fd succeeds?

I am not 100% sure on that. It's admittedly been a while since I've been that low level, and I leveled very fast on my Monk from 1-35.

Unrest does have a few mobs that are level 35 or higher, so it is possible the train that OP was aggroed on had one of those mobs in it. The Ghost Dwarf is one of the level 35 mobs I think.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I did some basic testing. The "fallen to the ground" message does not appear when FD fails because you leave auto attack on while casting FD, for example.

This proves there are cases where FD doesn't work and you also do not receive the "fallen to the ground" message. This is why using /con is more reliable when trying to determine if your FD succeeded or not.

As I said, I've only gotten the message 69 times in 4 years worth of logs on my SK, but I know I've failed more FDs. It's possible this is a quirk with the spell version of FD specifically.

[Keebz]

The "fallen to the ground" message does not appear when FD fails because you leave auto attack on while casting FD, for example.


You should be using a macro that turns off attack before casting FD if this is happening to you. This is a newb mistake.

Moreover, the 'fallen to the ground' message is extremely important for doing any sort of challenging content with an FD class. You should have a gina trigger set up to catch it. There's no time to /con before standing when you have level 60 mobs chasing you.

Given FD failure is in the 5-10% range, your personal anecdata really just reflects how little you leverage feign death.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You should be using a macro that turns off attack before casting FD if this is happening to you. This is a newb mistake.


I understand you need to turn autoattack off. I said so earlier in the thread lol.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674543&postcount=2


This doesn't apply to your situation, but if you are actively autoattacking a mob when you FD, that can cause FD to fail as well. You need to turn autoattack off before attempting to FD.

=====================


Moreover, the 'fallen to the ground' message is extremely important for doing any sort of challenging content with an FD class. You should have a gina trigger set up to catch it. There's no time to /con before standing when you have level 60 mobs chasing you.


I used the situation of FD failing due to autoattacking as an example of when the message doesn't appear. This means there are situations where the "fallen to the ground" message does not appear, even when FD fails. This makes the message unreliable.

You can macro /con lol, you have time. If you have a macro that turns off auto attack, just add /con to it with a slight delay so it occurs after FD happens. I've never had a problem using /con, even in difficult encounters. I use it all the time. The only mistake is using an unreliable message on a gina trigger. Use the /con instead. It is 100% reliable.


Given FD failure is in the 5-10% range, your personal anecdata really just reflects how little you leverage feign death.


The lack of messages in my logs comes from the unreliability of the message, not my lack of FD use.

In 4 years worth of logs, I have cast Feign Death (Spell, BE Greaves, or Death Peace) 3221 times, and I have gotten the "Bazgek has fallen to the ground" message 70 times. That means the message is appearing 2% of the time, roughly speaking.

You are making yourself look silly here by trying to attack me for no reason.

[sajbert]

Never ever seen the message not be displayed. If it fails it’s because it succeeded but you autoattacked or the mob landed a spell on you.

Setting up a GINA trigger is solid advice and without Gina it’s stil the easiest and fastest way to conclude if FD worked.

DSM. You goofed. P99 is a cool game, always something for everyone to learn.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Never ever seen the message not be displayed. If it fails it’s because it succeeded but you autoattacked or the mob landed a spell on you.

Setting up a GINA trigger is solid advice and without Gina it’s stil the easiest and fastest way to conclude if FD worked.

DSM. You goofed. P99 is a cool game, always something for everyone to learn.

Oh I agree GINA triggers are a good idea. I never said you shouldn't.

You set up GINA on the /con based on if it is threatening/scowling or not. The "fallen to the ground" message factually does not appear in all FD fail cases, and is thus unreliable. You can be redundant and set up GINA for both messages if you want, but /con is always going to be more reliable. You can't assume the "fallen to the ground" message is going to appear on a failed FD.

It's honestly bad advise to tell people not to /con mobs to check if FD failed or not.

[sajbert]

I've never seen the FD message not appear. Not once.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I've never seen the FD message not appear. Not once.

You can test it yourself. FD with autoattack on. You don't get the message. This means there are scenarios where FD fails and you don't get the message.

If FD succeeds and then fails, the result is the same as if you initially failed, except you don't get the message. You are being attacked by mobs and need to stand up and FD again.

This means the message is unreliable, and thus you should use /con. It will always tell you if FD failed, because the mob will still be threatening/scowling while you are FDed. As I said before, you could check for both messages via GINA if you want rendundancy.

[sajbert]

Or you have a macro that turns autoattack off...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Or you have a macro that turns autoattack off...

Indeed! I have said as much multiple times on these forums. That isn't new information, and nobody disagrees with it. You are clearly missing the point, or trying to deflect.

The "fallen to the ground" message is unreliable, and it is easy to prove it is unreliable. There are at least two scenarios in which you will not get the message, possibly more.

Using /con is always going to work, regardless of the scenario. You can macro /con, or bind it to a key (I have it bound to C). It's very easy to do in any situation. There is no scenario where you don't have time to con a mob.

[Troxx]

The "fallen to the ground" message is unreliable, and it is easy to prove it is unreliable. There are at least two scenarios in which you will not get the message, possibly more.

… you didn’t even know it existed until just over 48 hours ago


https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/hSnUtjbuOEPvL0fA9Z_5TeQbCCU=/fit-in/442x320/top/filters:format_auto():upscale()/2014/10/22/925/n/1922283/6df774811f2180ea_bill-murray-snl-laugh.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

… you didn’t even know it existed until just over 48 hours ago


70 messages out of 3221 FD attempts is a pretty small chance that I would see it. And it's proven that it's an unreliable message anyway.

I know you are just trolling because you cannot win arguments normally, but /con is factually more reliable. Sorry you've been using an unreliable message this whole time, missing when FD fails multiple times. Hopefully you may actually learn something for once. Unlike yourself, I admit when I am wrong, or learned something new.

[Troxx]

Have you checked your monks logs yet?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Have you checked your monks logs yet?

Thanks for conceding the point via continued trolling.

70 "fallen to the ground" messages out of 3221 FD attempts is not very reassuring. This is especially true since you can prove that the "fallen to the ground" message does not show up in some fail cases.

I would advise you use /con, or bind it to a key. It will always tell you the status of your FD, regardless of whether the "fallen to the ground" message has appeared or not.

[Troxx]

Are you scared to check your monk’s logs? I’m confused why you’re so hesitant to look.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you scared to check your monk’s logs? I’m confused why you’re so hesitant to look.

Not at all. It's simply irrelevant to the topic at hand for multiple reasons.

1. This thread is about Necromancers, which means spell FD is the specific FD we are referring to. SK's use spell FD too.

2. I learned how FD works on my SK, which I have played much longer than my Monk. My SK was my first high level character on the server. As a result, I know how to check if FD failed without using the unreliable and rare "fallen to the ground" message. Using /con is 100% reliable at all times.

3. On a Monk, there isn't a message that appears when you press FD. This means I can't actually tell you how many times I have FD'ed in comparison to how many times I got the "fallen to the ground" message. I would basically just be giving you the number of "fallen to the ground" messages, without anything to compare it to. SK's and Necro's have the "You begin casting feign death." message, or "Your blood ember greaves begins to glow." message in the case of the clickie. This makes it easy to figure out how many times you have FD'ed.

4. You are just trolling right now, which means the results are irrelevant to what you are going to say next. You will find some excuse to continue trolling anyway. If the result is more "fallen to the ground" messages, it doesn't matter because I learned how to use FD on my SK, who got the message 70 times out of 3221 FD attempts. If the result is less "fallen to the ground" messages, you'll just accuse me of lying.

[sajbert]

Sorry DSM but you're just wrong here. You had a lapse in game knowledge. It happens. Move on.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Sorry DSM but you're just wrong here. You had a lapse in game knowledge. It happens. Move on.

I admitted to not knowing about the message already. There is nothing here to indicate I am trying to deny that.

It is clear you keep deflecting on the fact that the "fallen to the ground" message is unreliable, and this is easy to prove.

You are the one who is refusing to accept information from other posters by trying to claim the "fallen to the ground" is all you need to check, which is factually false.

Using /con will tell you if the mob is still scowling/threatening, even when the "fallen to the ground" message does not appear.

[Troxx]

Have you checked your monks logs yet?

Still waiting. It would take you all of a few minutes or less.

[Jimjam]

Going back to op’s topic your character died because it’s hp got too low. Try keeping your hp above zero so your character doesn’t faint.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Still waiting. It would take you all of a few minutes or less.

You can continue to wait then. As I said, I can't actually tell you how many times I've FD'ed on my Monk, because FD doesn't provide a message. The "fallen to the ground" message amount is meaningless when it is compared to nothing. The data I can provide is still 70 "Bazgek has fallen to the ground" messages in 3221 FD attempts.

[Toxigen]

Fallen to the ground happens on every FD fail.

Hope this helps

godamn you're bad at this game

[Troxx]

https://media.tenor.com/qeRwe7venkMAAAAM/ryan-ayup.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Fallen to the ground happens on every FD fail.

Hope this helps

godamn you're bad at this game

Factually false, and you can test it yourself. If your FD fails due to autoattack being on or you get hit by a spell, the message does not appear. There may be other scenarios too. Please stop providing misinformation simply because you want to attack other people.

[skulldudes]

bro i'm sorry but if your FD "fails" because you forgot to turn off auto or get hit by a spell, it's simply not "FD failing"; it's user error and game mechanics, in that order.

FD, as a skill in a vacuum, will always display a message on failure.

there is literally never a circumstance where you should need to con enemies while flopped to know you're flopped. you know you failed if you see the message, and you know you beefed it w/ auto or a spell landing if they're still stomping on you.

[Toxigen]

bro i'm sorry but if your FD "fails" because you forgot to turn off auto or get hit by a spell, it's simply not "FD failing"; it's user error and game mechanics, in that order.

FD, as a skill in a vacuum, will always display a message on failure.

there is literally never a circumstance where you should need to con enemies while flopped to know you're flopped. you know you failed if you see the message, and you know you beefed it w/ auto or a spell landing if they're still stomping on you.

congratulations you just unlocked DSMs full fury, c u in 20 pages

[DeathsSilkyMist]

and you know you beefed it w/ auto or a spell landing if they're still stomping on you.

Thank you for supporting my point that the "fallen to the ground" message is not the only method for checking if FD has failed. Claiming other people are "bad" because they don't look down to see that message is clearly nonsense using your own example.


there is literally never a circumstance where you should need to con enemies while flopped to know you're flopped.


However, you are incorrect about /conning a mob. You can /con the mob to see if they are still after you by checking if they are still scowling/threatening. This is great when you cannot see the mobs. Also, some people turn off their spell particles and/or sound completely, so you may not always notice getting hit by a spell in those cases.

[skulldudes]

sure, man, whatever you say. i never called you bad? lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

sure, man, whatever you say. i never called you bad? lol

Oh I do apologize for that, I didn't intend to call you out specifically. It was a general statement, as other people are claiming players are bad if they don't look for the "fallen to the ground" message. I agree the wording was poor on my part.

[sajbert]

DSM, this topic makes you look bad.

How you go from not knowing there’s a FD-message to arguing that you did it correctly anyway because according to you (and literally no one else) FD message doesn’t always appear and then proceed to damage control by thanking people for ”admitting” there’s another way to hit (referring to your /con method)?

That’s just sad.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM, this topic makes you look bad.

How you go from not knowing there’s a FD-message to arguing that you did it correctly anyway because according to you (and literally no one else) FD message doesn’t always appear and then proceed to damage control by thanking people for ”admitting” there’s another way to hit (referring to your /con method)?

That’s just sad.

I am not sure why you think I am doing damage control when I never denied not knowing about the message.

I simply do not want false information out there. The fallen to the ground message is factually unreliable. You can test this yourself in game. There are other ways to check if FD failed that are reliable, like /con, watching what the mob is doing, etc.

I am not sure why you think the fallen to the ground message is the best way to check if FD failed when I have been able to check if FD failed perfectly fine without it.

[Toxigen]

FD Fail and FDing when you're being casted on are not the same thing.

Kittens is a great home for you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

FD Fail and FDing when you're being casted on are not the same thing.


Again, you are missing the point.

Take a look at these two scenarios:

1. FD fails, mob attacks you.

2. Mob lands a spell on you, mob attacks you.

The end result of both scenarios is FD doesn't work, and you need to recast FD. The difference between the two is scenario 1 provides a message, and scenario 2 does not.

Knowing how to look for FD failures without the message is the more reliable route, as there are FD failure scenarios that do not generate a message.

[Toxigen]

lol

Its too bad Freedom had to merge with AG.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

lol

Its too bad Freedom had to merge with AG.

Thank you for conceding via trolling. As you can see, Toxigen cannot rebut because he knows what I am saying is correct.

[Troxx]

Did you ever check your monk’s logs?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Did you ever check your monk’s logs?

Thank you for continuing to concede via trolling. It's like clockwork at this point.

One day you may actually understand that Monk FD does not provide a message when you click it, and thus there is nothing to compare the "fallen to the ground" messages to. I am not sure what you would do with that number, other than continuing to troll and concede that you were wrong.

[Toxigen]

lol

[sajbert]

lmao

[DeathsSilkyMist]

lol

lmao

Agreed. It is funny to see people continuing to troll when they cannot win a debate via facts and logic. If they could win the debate, they wouldn't need to do these things. It's mostly sad, but a little funny too.

[sajbert]

"facts" like FD not displaying a message if you have a cancel autoattack macro? Which even rookies are aware of they should have. Oh and, you know, the FD message actually does appear every time unless you do something horribly wrong.

The only logical conclusion here is that you're mentally inept to admit that you are twice wrong.

[Toxigen]

careful sajbert you're gonna send him into orbit

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"facts" like FD not displaying a message if you have a cancel autoattack macro? Which even rookies are aware of they should have. Oh and, you know, the FD message actually does appear every time unless you do something horribly wrong.

The only logical conclusion here is that you're mentally inept to admit that you are twice wrong.

Nothing here changes the fact that FD can fail without a message. Nothing here changes the fact that knowing about other methods to check if has FD failed are a positive thing to know about the game. I can determine if FD has failed 100% of the time without ever looking at the "fallen to the ground" message.

I am sorry you are at the point where you have insult me because you know you cannot win the debate via facts and logic. Thank you for admitting defeat. Come back when you can actually provide something other than insults.

[Toxigen]

Nothing here changes the fact that FD can fail without a message. Nothing here changes the fact that knowing about other methods to check if has FD failed are a positive thing to know about the game. I can determine if FD has failed 100% of the time without ever looking at the "fallen to the ground" message.

I am sorry you are at the point where you have insult me because you know you cannot win the debate via facts and logic. Thank you for admitting defeat. Come back when you can actually provide something other than insults.

FD doesn't fail without a message. You fail without a message.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

FD doesn't fail without a message.

Factually incorrect. You will not get a "fallen to the ground" message in at least two FD fail cases:

1. If a mob hits you with an offensive spell, aoe or otherwise.

2. You attacked the mob right before you FD'ed, via something like having auto attack on.

There may be more scenarios too.

You fail without a message.

Thank you for continuing to concede via trolling.

[Toxigen]

Factually incorrect. You will not get a "fallen to the ground" message in at least two FD fail cases:

1. If a mob hits you with an offensive spell, aoe or otherwise.

2. You attacked the mob right before you FD'ed, via something like having auto attack on.

There may be more scenarios too.



Thank you for continuing to concede via trolling.

You're denser than diamond.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're denser than diamond.

You seem to think that a mob attacking you while you are on the ground is a successful FD. You might want to quit trolling while you are behind. It doesn't make you look good, and doesn't hurt me.

[Danth]

Don't need a cancelattack macro for using feign death. I've never used one. Easy enough to turn attack off.

Feign death fails on its own with the "fallen to the ground" message. It will also fail due to external factors--with no message--via a few other means. Trying to feign with autoattack running breaks it. Spells landing on an otherwise successfully-feigned player will break the effect. It can also break from incoming melee if a swing lands at just the right time as the player tries to feign. This latter case tends to be uncommon on P1999, but it does happen once in awhile and is often a cause for confusion due to its relative rarity in practice.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Don't need a cancelattack macro for using feign death. I've never used one. Easy enough to turn attack off.

Feign death fails on its own with the "fallen to the ground" message. It will also fail due to external factors--with no message--via a few other means. Trying to feign with autoattack running breaks it. Spells landing on an otherwise successfully-feigned player will break the effect. It can also break from incoming melee if a swing lands at just the right time as the player tries to feign. This latter case tends to be uncommon on P1999, but it does happen once in awhile and is often a cause for confusion due to its relative rarity in practice.

Exactly. This is correct.

I manually turn off autoattack on my SK as well. For my Monk I have a macro since it is instant cast.

[Toxigen]

You seem to think that a mob attacking you while you are on the ground is a successful FD. You might want to quit trolling while you are behind. It doesn't make you look good, and doesn't hurt me.

You failing to turn off autoattack isn't a FD fail.

You failing to notice a mob casting on you doesn't make FD fail.

When FD actually fails, you get a message every time.

I can't spell this out any more for you.

I've played with a lot of very good monks, some of the best the server has ever seen. I have never, ever heard any of them refer to "FD fail" for anything other than the skill itself failing and thus triggering the message. If they screwed up a flop it wasn't a FD fail, it was an "oh shit I fucked up."

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You failing to turn off autoattack isn't a FD fail.

You failing to notice a mob casting on you doesn't make FD fail.

When FD actually fails, you get a message every time.

I can't spell this out any more for you.

What you are saying here is a mob attacking you while you are on the ground is a succrssful FD. Nonsense obviously.

Necromancers and SK's have a cast time on their FD. The mob can start casting a spell right as your FD finished. They don't have instant FD like a Monk. AoE spells can hit you too if someone else gets agro.

Even with autoattack off, a poorly timed riposted will do the same thing and cause your FD to fail, as Danth said.

Also, you don't seem to understand multiple FD's as a strategy. SK's get multiple FD's and a clickie FD. You can FD while a spell is being cast to prevent a few combat rounds worth of damage, and then FD again when no spells are being cast. This also opens up the possibility of caster mobs casting a buff spell since they are deagroed, which means they can't cast an offensive spell when you stand up. This is nice when you have multiple casters pulled.

[Toxigen]

What you are saying here is a mob attacking you while you are on the ground is a succrssful FD. Nonsense obviously.

Necromancers and SK's have a cast time on their FD. The mob can start casting a spell right as your FD finished. They don't have instant FD like a Monk.

Also, you don't seem to understand multiple FD's as a strategy. SK's get multiple FD's and a clickie FD. You can FD while a spell is being cast to prevent a few combat rounds worth of damage, and then FD again when no spells are being cast. This also opens up the possibility of caster mobs casting a buff spell since they are deagroes, which means they can't cast an offensive spell when you stand up.

I understand everything you do and more about this game, bubski.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I understand everything you do and more about this game, bubski.

Clearly not, since you believe a successful FD is a scenario where you are being attacked by the mob. You are just making youself look bad.

[Toxigen]

jesus christ

[DeathsSilkyMist]

jesus christ

I agree. It's very strange that you believe the mob attacking you while FD'ed is a success.

For reference, a successful FD is a scenario in which the mobs are not attacking you.

[sajbert]

No, FD cannot fail without a message unless you do something wrong like not turning off autoattack.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No, FD cannot fail without a message unless you do something wrong like not turning off autoattack.

What do you call a scenario where the mob is attacking you after you FD'ed?

[bcbrown]

Hey, uh, I have a FD question.

Does casting a heal or other beneficial spell on someone who has successfully feigned death break it?

[Danth]

Hey, uh, I have a FD question.

Does casting a heal or other beneficial spell on someone who has successfully feigned death break it?

No, it doesn't affect feign. You can receive heals/etc as much as you like whilst feigned out. I make use of this regularly when duo'ing with the wife's shaman.

Also, dot damage running does not break feign, provided the effect was put on the player before feigning out. Perhaps the most confusing is that a monster casting cancel magic won't break feign the way other spells do. I believe it's coded as "beneficial." Seeing a monster casting dispell is practically a relief.

[Toxigen]

What do you call a scenario where the mob is attacking you after you FD'ed?

A failure in situational awareness.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A failure in situational awareness.

Can you turn off Ripostes? Last time I checked, it isn't player error to have an ill-timed riposte cause an FD failure. This will cause an FD failure without a "fallen to the ground" message.

Also, thank you for agreeing with me that there are other methods to check if FD failed besides looking for the "fallen to the ground" message.

[Duik]

Jesus.
Fucking.
Christ.

[Jimjam]

What do you call a scenario where the mob is attacking you after you FD'ed?

That is not FD failing. That is the mob realising that they had been tricked. FD was successful, but the mobs are smart and can work out a successful FD happened and change their opinion based on new information...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

That is the mob realising that they had been tricked. FD was successful, but the mobs are smart and can work out a successful FD happened and change their opinion based on new information...

Lol that is a good analogy. Sadly the mob does not deign to provide a specific message like "you have fallen to the ground" when realizing it has been bamboozled. It will still attack you in the same manner as when FD randomly fails. That is why you /con it, so you can see if it is wearing a scowly face or not. Mobs are apparently bad at hiding their emotions, and thus reading their emotions and actions is more reliable.

[Troxx]

Jesus.
Fucking.
Christ.

Quoted for emphasis

[Toxigen]

Quoted for emphasis

lol sig

buT if i dOnT tURn oFf aTTacK Fd fAilS anD No M3s$aaaaage!!!!11!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

As you can see, Troxx and Toxigen continue to concede via trolling. I am not sure why they think spamming the thread is making them look good, or correct.

Toxigen still seems to believe an FD is a success when the mob is hitting you while you are on the ground.

[Toxigen]

Yep FD succeeded, you didn't get the fallen to the ground message.

But you failed your situational awareness check. Sorry you don't got flop success hope this helps.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yep FD succeeded, you didn't get the fallen to the ground message.

But you failed your situational awareness check. Sorry you don't got flop success hope this helps.

You still didn't answer my question about riposte lol. Can a player turn off riposte to prevent an FD failure due to a poorly timed riposte?

Thank for for continuing to agree with me that there are other ways to check if FD failed too.

[Videri]

You still didn't answer my question about riposte lol. Can a player turn off riposte to prevent an FD failure due to a poorly timed riposte?

Thank for for continuing to agree with me that there are other ways to check if FD failed too.

There is no way to turn off ripostes. Riposting can break FD without a fail message.

I have heard some SKs do not train riposte ever in order to prevent this.

Also, just a note to the many many people reading: riposte is pronounced rih-post. Like “rip” a piece of paper, “post” it on the wall. Incorrect pronunciations I have heard include “rip a site,” very creative, very annoying.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There is no way to turn off ripostes. Riposting can break FD without a fail message.


Thanks Videri!

[Videri]

I know you guys love to bash people, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore the correct things someone says.

[Keebz]

Just so we're clear here, riposte is not a threat to breaking FD and no, FD classes don't "skip" training riposte for safety.

This is ancient aliens level delusion.

[Jimjam]

Are we saying an SK can riposte while laying down?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are we saying an SK can riposte while laying down?

You can happen to riposte right when you are FDing, which will break FD. Same concept with leaving autoattack on while FDing, as you are swinging your weapon at the same time as you are FDing. These scenarios will not provide a "fallen to the ground" message

[sajbert]

Never happened on my monk and even if it did the mobs whacking you would give it away that something failed. Conning a mob would be stupid and not change a thing in such an instance. Same goes for mob casting btw.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Never happened on my monk and even if it did the mobs whacking you would give it away that something failed. Conning a mob would be stupid and not change a thing in such an instance. Same goes for mob casting btw.

Just because something hasn't happened to you (or you didn't notice it), it doesn't mean it can't happen. I got 70 "fallen to the ground" messages out of 3221 FD attempts, which is also a rare occurrence.

Telling people that conning mobs is a bad strategy to determine if FD failed is nonsense. Please stop spreading misinformation. This is a great way to check if mobs behind a corner are still running at you, as a simple example.

Also, thank you for agreeing with me that there are other methods to check if FD failed besides the "fallen to the ground" message.

[Jimjam]

You can happen to riposte right when you are FDing, which will break FD. Same concept with leaving autoattack on while FDing, as you are swinging your weapon at the same time as you are FDing. These scenarios will not provide a "fallen to the ground" message

Disregarding severe lag surely this isn’t an issue for shadow knights who r necromancers due to the cast time on the various FD spels/clicks. Is there an instacast FD i’m not aware of?

/pause n, /attack off
/pause n, /doability #fd
/consider

Makes a good start to a fd macro for monk. Obviously lacks the functionality of greying out with reuse timer. I wonder whether it is possible to add that with custom UI.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Disregarding severe lag surely this isn’t an issue for shadow knights who r necromancers due to the cast time on the various FD spels/clicks. Is there an instacast FD i’m not aware of?

/pause n, /attack off
/pause n, /doability #fd
/consider

Makes a good start to a fd macro for monk. Obviously lacks the functionality of greying out with reuse timer. I wonder whether it is possible to add that with custom UI.

If I understand what you are saying, you are correct that Necromancers do not have riposte. For SK's, you can riposte right when you finish casting the FD spell, just like you can attack right after you finish casting the FD spell. The point is simply that there are FD fail cases out of the player's control, and thus Toxigen's argument of "FD failure without a message can only be caused by the player" is false.

As you point out, FD has a cast time. This means you can land FD right when a mob starts casting a spell as well, before you have time to cancel FD. This is also out of the player's control, but the result is an FD failure without a message once the spell lands.

[Troxx]

FD “fails” when

A) you fail to turn off autoattack
B) a mob was casting on you and spell landed after a FD.
C) “Player_abc falls to the ground”

That’s it.

A) this is player failure and fixed only by not being stupid
B) this is a combination of player not paying close enough attention or bad luck
C) this is luck. I suspect spell FD has a flat small% chance to fail. Skill level based for monks but with a flat percentage (probably higher% than spell) to fail as well even at max

Prior to this thread I have never seen anyone advocate for conning a mob to ensure FD succeeded.

I mean why would you. The game Fckin tells you if it failed.


DSM was just caught with his pants down not understanding some pretty basic shit about this game. Rather than own it and move on we’re doing mental gymnastics to rationalize and explain away his knowledge deficit.

This thread is hilarious.

[Jimjam]

You can happen to riposte right when you are FDing, which will break FD. Same concept with leaving autoattack on while FDing, as you are swinging your weapon at the same time as you are FDing. These scenarios will not provide a "fallen to the ground" message

Ah I understand what this is saying now. Your most recent post was very helpful to clarify. I misread the grammar - I’ve been abroad for a but and my English brain hasn’t fully retaken dominance of my processing yet. Thank you for clarifying.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ah I understand what this is saying now. Your most recent post was very helpful to clarify. I misread the grammar - I’ve been abroad for a but and my English brain hasn’t fully retaken dominance of my processing yet. Thank you for clarifying.

No worries! Thanks for the response.


Prior to this thread I have never seen anyone advocate for conning a mob to ensure FD succeeded.

I mean why would you. The game Fckin tells you if it failed.


Troxx continues to give bad advise by not understanding how /con works. You can use /con to see if mobs are still scowling/threatening after you have FD'ed. One useful scenario for this is when you cannot see the mobs.

Please stop spreading misinformation because of your uncontrollable urge to spam/troll threads.

Rather than own it


I did own it. I admitted it, and never denied it. https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674571&postcount=6 .

The people who are floundering because they cannot admit that they are wrong is yourself and Toxigen. This is why you are trolling right now, because you are the one doing mental gymnastics in an attempt to be correct. You are floundering so hard you have to put a quote of mine in your signature to try and feel better about yourself.

[Toxigen]

I wipe back to front.

[Troxx]

I prefer progressively larger counterclockwise circular movements … gotta make sure even coverage of the smearing

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thank you for continuing to admit you are wrong via trolling.

[sajbert]

Just because something hasn't happened to you (or you didn't notice it), it doesn't mean it can't happen. I got 70 "fallen to the ground" messages out of 3221 FD attempts, which is also a rare occurrence.

You also don't even use a cancel autoattack-macro. Your data is trash.

Sucks to be wrong DSM. Move on with your life.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You also don't even use a cancel autoattack-macro. Your data is trash.

Sucks to be wrong DSM. Move on with your life.

Seems like the only person who should move on is yourself.

I use a cancel autoattack macro on my Monk, and know how to turn auto attack off before FD on my SK. It's never an issue, except in your imagination where you want to see me fail for some strange reason.

Thank you for conceding via rage post.

[sajbert]

Disregarding severe lag surely this isn’t an issue for shadow knights who r necromancers due to the cast time on the various FD spels/clicks. Is there an instacast FD i’m not aware of?

/pause n, /attack off
/pause n, /doability #fd
/consider

Makes a good start to a fd macro for monk. Obviously lacks the functionality of greying out with reuse timer. I wonder whether it is possible to add that with custom UI.
Good point as well, not that it's ever happened on my monk either and I play from Europe with shit latency.

DSM is literally just reaching at straws because he can't deal with being twice wrong.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Good point as well, not that it's ever happened on my monk either and I play from Europe with shit latency.

DSM is literally just reaching at straws because he can't deal with being twice wrong.

Thank you for continuing to concede via rage post. Lack of rebuttal and insults are not a valid argument.

[Troxx]

I love how he loves to thank people for conceding when no concession was given.

It’s a classic DSM_ism

[Danth]

I use a cancel autoattack macro on my Monk, and know how to turn auto attack off before FD on my SK. It's never an issue, except in your imagination where you want to see me fail for some strange reason.


When somebody gets so used to using a crutch that he can't function without it anymore, quite often he will convince himself that everyone else needs the same crutch, too. Of course it's not true, but it doesn't stop the formation of such perceptions. Hence why he would expect a person not doing it to fail.

Can't say I use /con to check FD fails though. Never seemed necessary to me. Either you get the fail message, or something that breaks feign is extremely obvious, like something landing a spell cast. /conn doesn't hurt but seems redundant if the player's already properly paying attention. I can think of some particularly tough splits where I was splitting stuff while being chain-blinded. All I had to use was hotkeys and audio. That's about as tough as conventional feign situations will get.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I love how he loves to thank people for conceding when no concession was given.

It’s a classic DSM_ism

You concede whenever you resort to trolling. It shows you cannot win the argument via logic and facts. If you could win the debate, you wouldn't troll. Trolling just ruins your credibility in the debate.

When somebody gets so used to using a crutch that he can't function without it anymore, quite often he will convince himself that everyone else needs the same crutch, too. Of course it's not true, but it doesn't stop the formation of such perceptions. Hence why he would expect a person not doing it to fail.


Agreed.


Can't say I use /con to check FD fails though. Never seemed necessary to me. Either you get the fail message, or something that breaks feign is extremely obvious, like something landing a spell cast. /conn doesn't hurt but seems redundant if the player's already properly paying attention. I can think of some particularly tough splits where I was splitting stuff while being chain-blinded. All I had to use was hotkeys and audio. That's about as tough as conventional feign situations will get.

I use /con in situations where I cannot see the mobs, like when they are around a wall. It's easier to see the colored text come up so I can quickly check what it says. Just taking a look at the "fallen to the ground" message, it is default colored white, like a lot of other text already is. That's probably one reason why I didn't notice it. /con is also nice if your chat is getting spammed somehow, and you don't want to spend the time scrolling up, you can just /con again to get a fresh message.

I agree there are obvious ways to check if FD fails as well without looking at messages, like checking if the mob is casting a spell or still attacking you.

Blind is the worst for sure. You should be able to have a GINA trigger on both /con and the "fallen to the ground" message if worried about those situations, or just press your FD hotkey and listen for getting hit sounds and/or casting sounds.

[fortior]

FD fail is the #1 killer of monks doing eyeball pulls in tov, beware! The other #1 killer is getting tagged by an AoE procced by another FD failed monk while feigned yourself

[Gloomlord]

Can DSM just leave the forums already? I just...don't want this creature to be on the forums anymore.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Can DSM just leave the forums already? I just...don't want this creature to be on the forums anymore.

Why bother posting this nonsense? Over 80% of your posts are just like this. Your forum account is almost exclusively used for trolling/spamming.

Please learn to use your account for actual discussion, or stop posting.

[Gloomlord]

How many different people now have insulted you and called you out? I've lost count. It must be over 20+ people by now.

Could it just be that you're a solipsistic narcissist, rather than me being a troll?

No, seriously! This isn't a snappy insult I'm throwing. Think about it for one second.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

How many different people now have insulted you and called you out? I've lost count. It must be over 20+ people by now.

Could it just be that you're a solipsistic narcissist, rather than me being a troll?

No, seriously! This isn't a snappy insult I'm throwing. Think about it for one second.

You do realize you are a troll right? At least 80% of your posts look just like this.

Your evidence that I am a solipsistic narcissist is other proven trolls have insulted me in the past.

This is very poor logic/evidence, and nobody is buying it.

Please stop being a troll. You can redeem yourself.

[Duik]

That is definately an AI like response. Gather key words for retort. Make example of previous posts. Remind user that they can be better. Tell user they have faith in them. Redemption is nigh!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

That is definately an AI like response. Gather key words for retort. Make example of previous posts. Remind user that they can be better. Tell user they have faith in them. Redemption is nigh!

The trolls are the ones with the AI responses. Posters like Gloomlord just regurgitate the same insults trolls, lies, etc., over and over. Once the trolls stop their AI responses, I won't need to defend myself. If you attack a poster with the same insult over and over, I am not sure why you think their defense would change. The solution is to stop the attacks in the first place, to make defense no longer necessary.

[Troxx]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/846/426/fc0.gif

[Duik]

Imma give ya (another) hint. Trolls by nature are childish, ie they wont stop. To prove you are indeed the superior man it must be you that stops.

Prove me wrong. Or right. Either works for me.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Imma give ya (another) hint. Trolls by nature are childish, ie they wont stop. To prove you are indeed the superior man it must be you that stops.

Prove me wrong. Or right. Either works for me.

Or you can join me to fight against the trolls to make them lose interest in trolling. Once it's no longer fun, they won't do it. You support the trolls by encouraging them to continue while simultaneously ignoring their bad behavior.

Bullies will stop bullying when you stand up to them. Sadly nobody besides myself is doing so, which means the bullying continues. Trolls and bullies are cowards by nature. They can only operate while you don't call their bluff.

[Duik]

I am currently ambivalent. I care not either way but clearly you do. But I do know that were I a troll and someone kept feeding me and I had a hankerin' fer some lonely nerd meat i'd lap that shit up.

Steamed Nerd Sweet Meats. Snack. Temp Illusion: Troll.
In a spit combine Nerd Meat + Steam. Berry Neditious.

Unless this really is an AI learning (and doing a great job) please continue.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am currently ambivalent. I care not either way but clearly you do. But I do know that were I a troll and someone kept feeding me and I had a hankerin' fer some lonely nerd meat i'd lap that shit up.

Steamed Nerd Sweet Meats. Snack. Temp Illusion: Troll.
In a spit combine Nerd Meat + Steam. Berry Neditious.

Unless this really is an AI learning (and doing a great job) please continue.

You clearly do care, as you are posting and picking sides. You wouldn't almost exclusively respond to me if you were just trying to poke fun at everything in an ambivalent way.

This is why you are also a troll. You support the trolls and pile on when they attack other posters. You never go against them. Probably due to cowardice on your own part.

You can always change your behavior and improve for the benefit of the P99 community.

[Duik]

AI it is then.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

AI it is then.

Sadly that is the route you and the other trolls are taking. Constantly reposting the same off-topic nonsense, insults, and lies across many threads does get tiring to read. You can stop at any time.

You and the other trolls are the problem, so you need to fix it.

[Gloomlord]

Or you can join me to fight against the trolls to make them lose interest in trolling. Once it's no longer fun, they won't do it. You support the trolls by encouraging them to continue while simultaneously ignoring their bad behavior.

Bullies will stop bullying when you stand up to them. Sadly nobody besides myself is doing so, which means the bullying continues. Trolls and bullies are cowards by nature. They can only operate while you don't call their bluff.

So, most people who have called you out and tell you your logic is unsound are "cowards"? Is that right? You've accused people of being trolls when they only call you out once, for Christ sake.

This is why I use the term "solipsistic". Familiarise yourself with this word -- it sums you up perfectly.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So, most people who have called you out and tell you your logic is unsound are "cowards"? Is that right? You've accused people of being trolls when they only call you out once, for Christ sake.

This is why I use the term "solipsistic". Familiarise yourself with this word -- it sums you up perfectly.

Are you trying to get 90% of your posts looking like this instead? Please stop spamming threads with nonsense. You are a factual troll. You cite other trolls for your "evidence". Please fix yourself.

[Gloomlord]

Notice how you don't try to counter a word I just said? You just keep bringing up my post count ad nauseam -- hoping you can convince yourself that I'm a troll.

On this specific subject, the illusion is not even there that you're even slightly correct unlike other topics you've discussed. But what happens? You still argue and damage control yourself. You don't even have the humility to admit being wrong.

I don't need to say anymore. We all know you'll stay here to drive yourself into this psychosis where you're never wrong.

This is what solipsism is.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Notice how you don't try to counter a word I just said? You just keep bringing up my post count ad nauseam -- hoping you can convince yourself that I'm a troll.

On this specific subject, the illusion is not even there that you're even slightly correct unlike other topics you've discussed. But what happens? You still argue and damage control yourself. You don't even have the humility to admit being wrong.

I don't need to say anymore. We all know you'll stay here to drive yourself into this psychosis where you're never wrong.

This is what solipsism is.

Clearly projection. The only person who cannot counter a word I said and keep posting ad nauseam is yourself. I am just defending myself from your obvious trolling and lies. You are the one trying and failing to convince other people of lies and delusions. Your post history is factual. You are a troll based on all the evidence.

If you don't want me to bring up the fact that you are a troll via your post count, stop trolling! You can redeem yourself at any time.

[Gloomlord]

Duik may have been onto something here...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Duik may have been onto something here...

As you can see, Gloomlord continues to deflect from the fact that he basically only logs on these forums to troll. You can see his post history. When was the last time you actually responded to a thread in a normal manner?

[Videri]

So, OP, are you still reading? Are you still alive?

[Troxx]

OP tapped out a long time ago I’d wager … after he got his correct answer. The rest of this thread has been DSM defending his dumbass post. Ironically this was the very first reply in this thread … the first sentence of which was brazenly false but spoken with a frightening degree of self-assuredness.

Welcome to another amusing DSM thread.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

OP tapped out a long time ago I’d wager … after he got his correct answer. The rest of this thread has been DSM defending his dumbass post. Ironically this was the very first reply in this thread … the first sentence of which was brazenly false but spoken with a frightening degree of self-assuredness.

Welcome to another amusing DSM thread.

It's another Troxx and Friends thread. As usual, posters like Troxx will post off-topic nonsense and spam the thread. It's very unfortunate and predictable.

Troxx lost the debate in this thread so badly he had to change his signature to make himself feel better.

[Troxx]

I lost the debate by knowing there is a fallen to the ground message?

/boggle

[Gloomlord]

the first sentence of which was brazenly false but spoken with a frightening degree of self-assuredness.

That's solipsism for you.

In his disgraceful mind, he can never do wrong. He is always right, and the world needs to bend to his viewpoints. And he'll do this over the most innocuous subjects imaginable.

You may find this amusing, but I think it's stopped becoming funny ages ago. He's been acting in such bad faith for so long, spreading false information and causing chaos, I fail to comprehend why he's been allowed to run rampant.

Just get rid of him already. It's not that he's making controversial opinions, but that he's a genuinely immoral, hypocritical and narcissistic child.

Edit: I lost the debate by knowing there is a fallen to the ground message?

/boggle

Yeah. How can he possibly get out of this? He's been checkmated.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I lost the debate by knowing there is a fallen to the ground message?

/boggle

You didn't know about the message being unreliable, and about using /con. The only person defending themselves in this thread is yourself. It's your typical pattern to troll people instead of admitting you were wrong. You are so angry you changed your signature.

There was never a debate about me not knowing about the message. I admitted to it on page one lol. Sadly your trolling isn't even good. Unlike yourself, I am able to admit when I am wrong, and learn new things.

Gloomlord continues to post nonsense. He still can't tell us when he posted something normal lol. He just logs in to troll and spam threads. Over 80% of all his posts look just like the last one.

[Gloomlord]

Do you actually think what you just said makes any sense...? A person reading this right now can simply go back to the beginning of the thread and know you're completely full of shit.

Edit: Stop the stealth edits, you idiot.

[Troxx]

Nobody else uses /con. Lol … this is just your overly complicated work around for not understanding a basic mechanic of the game. The message is fully reliable. Turn off autoattack and flop. Unless you fall to the ground it works and really is only broken from there if a mob was casting a spell on you before you flopped.

I didn’t think it was possible but you have managed to look significantly more foolish in this thread than we typically expect of you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Do you actually think what you just said makes any sense...? A person reading this right now can simply go back to the beginning of the thread and know you're completely full of shit.

This is me admitting to not knowing about the message on page one:

Interesting! I never noticed that actually. Looking over a few years worth of logs going back to 2019, I've only gotten this message 69 times on my SK. They all indeed seem to occur during a failed FD. I am a bit surprised if I have only failed FD 69 times in 4 years worth of logs.

I need to look deeper into my logs and see if there are any failed FD's without that message. Perhaps the message only shows up if you are close to other mobs? It's just a wild guess though.

There was never any debate about it. Either you can't read, are trolling, or both.

With regards to your trolling patterns, people can look at your post history. It's basically all trolling and spamming.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Nobody else uses /con. Lol … this is just your overly complicated work around for not understanding a basic mechanic of the game. The message is fully reliable. Turn off autoattack and flop. Unless you fall to the ground it works and really is only broken from there if a mob was casting a spell on you before you flopped.

I didn’t think it was possible but you have managed to look significantly more foolish in this thread than we typically expect of you.

As you can see, Troxx cannot admit he didn't know about /con, and has to pretend it's because nobody uses it. He has no evidence to back this up.

He also didn't know about the scenarios where the message doesn't show up.

His signature shows how embarassed he is.

[Troxx]

Sequence of events:

-dude asks why his FD failed
-DSM states flatly that there is no fail message for FD
-community laughs and points out he is wrong
-DSM does mental cartwheels to save face and “prove” that he was doing it correctly the entire time and that the message isn’t reliable … that message he didn’t even fucking know existed.


This is hilarious.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Sequence of events:

-community laughs and points out he is wrong
-DSM does mental cartwheels to save face and “prove” that he was doing it correctly the entire time and that the message isn’t reliable … that message he didn’t even fucking know existed.


This is hilarious.

People can read the thread and see this is false. They can read your signature and see you are an angry troll.

Please admit you are wrong for once and stop spamming threads.

[Gloomlord]

You said there was no fail message. Someone pointed out you were completely wrong. You tried to damage control by saying it's really rare. People continued to point out how player error can also result in a failed FD, which is separate issue to the FD having an innate chance of just failing naturally.

You proved you were completely ignorant of this, and yet you still barged into the thread to prove you were an EQ expert. This is why we find you utterly insufferable, DSM. It's not because we're trolls -- it's that you're an arrogant individual who can't even give newbies correct information.

How do you even find this funny, Troxx?!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You said there was no fail message. Someone pointed out you were completely wrong. You tried to damage control by saying it's really rare. People continued to point out how player error can also result in a failed FD, which is separate issue to the FD having an innate chance of just failing naturally.

You proved you were completely ignorant of this, and yet you still barged into the thread to prove you were an EQ expert. This is why we find you utterly insufferable, DSM. It's not because we're trolls -- it's that you're an arrogant individual who can't even give newbies correct information.

How do you even find this funny, Troxx?!

Yes, I "damage controlled" by admitting I was wrong https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674571&postcount=6 . The mental gymnastics here are astounding.

The debate in this thread was about the message's reliability, frequency, and ways to check if FD failed. Troxx lost that debate so badly he changed his signature.

[Troxx]

How do you even find this funny, Troxx?!

Schadenfreude: German for the concept of pleasure derived from another person’s misfortune.

The self-inflicted nature of this particular misfortune is the icing on the cake.

What a tool.

PS: I changed my signature before my first reply in this thread lol

DSM … your arguments have fallen to the ground.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Schadenfreude: German for the concept of pleasure derived from another person’s misfortune.

The self-inflicted nature of this particular misfortune is the icing on the cake.

What a tool.

PS: I changed my signature before my first reply in this thread lol

DSM … your arguments have fallen to the ground.

Thank you for continuing to concede via trolling. It's always a tell-tale sign a troll has lost and gotten angry when they change their signature to try and attack a specific poster. It's very predictable. I've seen other trolls do this in the past.

[Troxx]

https://y.yarn.co/8348a6eb-1a07-44a7-ab70-7c52e999b118_text.gif

Keep on flailing sugar pie.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Keep on flailing sugar pie.

You continue to concede via trolling. You continue to embarrass yourself via your signature and location.

It's much easier to actually just admit you are wrong once in a while. If you stop trolling people may listen to you sometimes.

[Gloomlord]

Yes, I "damage controlled" by admitting I was wrong https://project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674571&postcount=6 . The mental gymnastics here are astounding.

The debate in this thread was about the message's reliability, frequency, and ways to check if FD failed. Troxx lost that debate so badly he changed his signature.

You damage controlled by saying that it was really rare and that it barely occurred in the logs, but you didn't even know about it to begin with -- thus proving you really need to think before you speak, and that you really aren't as knowledgeable about this game as you think you are.

We wouldn't have given you such a hard time about it if it weren't for the fact you keep doing this over and over again across the forums.

You can't be trusted. Do you not understand that?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You damage controlled by saying that it was really rare and that it barely occurred in the logs, but you didn't even know about it to begin with -- thus proving you really need to think before you speak, and that you really aren't as knowledgeable about this game as you think you are.

We wouldn't have given you such a hard time about it if it weren't for the fact you keep doing this over and over again across the forums.

You can't be trusted. Do you not understand that?

I never said I know everything about the game. I admitted I was wrong, and learned something. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something and admitting to it. Discussing the topic further isn't damage control. People can read the thread and see you are incorrect about what happened.

Troxx didn't know some things as well, and he has a pattern of trolling people instead of admitting he was wrong across many threads. That includes this one. You should be talking to Troxx about this instead. He is attempting damage control via trolling.

You are giving me a hard time simply because over 80% of your post history is doing just that. You are a factual troll.

The only people who can't be trusted are proven trolls and liars like yourself and Troxx. You've ruined your credibility with trolling and lies. How can people trust anything you say when you will go to any lengths to attack other posters?

[Gloomlord]

Are you incapable of reading a post, or do you selectively ignore things that make you look bad?

"You keep doing this over and over again across the forums" I believe it was.

And how many people have said the same thing I have? Funny how there's a troll epidemic when you're around on a thread. Very convenient, isn't it?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you incapable of reading a post, or do you selectively ignore things that make you look bad?

"You keep doing this over and over again across the forums" I believe it was.

And how many people have said the same thing I have? Funny how there's a troll epidemic when you're around on a thread. Very convenient, isn't it?

Do you think Troxx isn't a troll? I am not sure why you keep pretending to not see his signature and location. The same posters keep spamming threads with off topic nonsense, it's a very clear pattern.

[Jimjam]

So, OP, are you still reading? Are you still alive?

They died. Don’t you read the thread?

[Gloomlord]

Let's humour you for a moment and say Troxx is a troll...

Whenever someone gets pissed off with you, you call them a "troll". Every.Single.Time.

The word legitimately has no meaning anymore. What is a "troll" other than a person getting exasperated with your behaviour?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Let's humour you for a moment and say Troxx is a troll...

Whenever someone gets pissed off with you, you call them a "troll". Every.Single.Time.

The word legitimately has no meaning anymore. What is a "troll" other than a person getting exasperated with your behaviour?

If you agree Troxx is a troll, then I am correct to call him that. You also don't have any evidence to suggest I call people trolls all the time when they are acting normally. This is just another lie. Please find a post where you think this happened, I dare you.

[Gloomlord]

Define "normally". It is normal to insult, mock and harshly dismiss a person who displays a childish inability to concede a point.

You can't expect people to act civil with you. And how many times has this happened across the forums?

Are they expected to be paragons of patience? EverQuest attracts a pretty relaxed and mature audience compared to other games, yet you're still managing to wind up people.

This is a problem involving you. It's time to face facts.

Edit: Another stealth edit meant to "trap me". This is another sign you are a manipulative sociopath. The infamous 4 man caster thread is chock full of people you have called a troll for finally reaching their limit with you. That "dare" fell flat on its face.

[Troxx]

Feeling the need to rely on manually targeting a mob and /con to ensure my FD worked is about as sensible as routinely sticking my hand over the exhaust pipe of my car to ensure I actually turn the engine off.

Sure … it’s a way to make sure my car is indeed actually not still running …

but wtf …

A++ thread
5 star chortle material

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Define "normally". It is normal to insult, mock and harshly dismiss a person who displays a childish inability to concede a point.

You can't expect people to act civil with you. And how many times has this happened across the forums?

Are they expected to be paragons of patience? EverQuest attracts a pretty relaxed and mature audience compared to other games, yet you're still managing to wind up people.

This is a problem involving you. It's time to face facts.

As you can see, he cannot even provide one example of me calling someone a troll for no reason.

It is very childish and sad to see that he believes attacking other people he disagrees with is the proper course of action in a debate. This explains why over 80% of his posts look just like this. He doesn't understand how civil conversations work.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Feeling the need to rely on manually targeting a mob and /con to ensure my FD worked is about as sensible as routinely sticking my hand over the exhaust pipe of my car to ensure I actually turn the engine off.

This analogy makes no sense, because you aren't hurting yourself by using /con lol. You can bind it to a macro or key.

A better analogy is checking if your computer is off by either looking at the power light, or moving your mouse to see if it wakes up. Both methods work fine. You are basically trying to argue people are idiots if they use one method to check if their computer is off instead of the other. It's nonsense. It's ok to admit you didn't know about /con and the unreliable nature of the fallen to the ground message.

[Gloomlord]

Yes, this is why you stealth edit. You completely exposed yourself there.

Look back at my post. I caught onto it.

Troxx humiliating you is the very least you deserve. You're not even honourable in way you conduct yourself.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes, this is why you stealth edit. You completely exposed yourself there.

Look back at my post. I caught onto it.

Troxx humiliating you is the very least you deserve. You're not even honourable in way you conduct yourself.

As you can see, he cannot find an example of me calling someone a troll for no reason.

I am not sure what delusional nonsense he is referring to either. Editing a post is not some manipulation tactic. Trolls like yourself and Troxx twist my words, so I need to be sure my message cannot be manipulated by your trolling. That is the only reason why I edit posts.

[Gloomlord]

You edited in "find one example". You quoted me without the edit I made. You then used this as an example that I "couldn't find one example". Now you are projecting your own malevolence onto me.

You stealth edit to trick people (Well, nobody is going to buy it, anyway.). Nothing more.

Should I go through that infamous thread and take out every specific example of where you call people trolls? You kept copy-pasting the same post where people "should ignore the trolls", which consisted of more than 10 people.

"MEGA YIKES!"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You edited in "find one example". You quoted me without the edit I made. You then used this as an example that I "couldn't find one example". Now you are projecting your own malevolence onto me.

You stealth edit to trick people (Well, nobody is going to buy it, anyway.). Nothing more.

Should I go through that infamous thread and take out every specific example of where you call people trolls? You kept copy-pasting the same post where people "should ignore the trolls", which consisted of more than 10 people.

"MEGA YIKES!"

As you can see, Gloomlord is clearly delusional. He has no evidence to explain why I edit my posts, and is simply making things up to feed his fantasies. His constant attacks on me are a clear explaination as to why I edit my posts. He simply can't see that he is the one in the wrong here.

He still hasn't found a post, because he knows that you can go backwards from the post to see why the posters in question were called trolls.

[Gloomlord]

Who are you talking to, exactly? Nobody is believing you, you realise this?

Also, if your edits somehow were not manipulative, then you need to let people know that you edited. You're a "good man", right?

You can redeem yourself, DSM. Isn't that what you keep telling me?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Who are you talking to, exactly? Nobody is believing you, you realise this?

Also, if your edits somehow were not manipulative, then you need to let people know that you edited. You're a "good man", right?

You can redeem yourself, DSM. Isn't that what you keep telling me?

The forum has a feature where you can see past edits. If you think I am trying to edit posts before that occurs to manipulate others, that is just silly. I edit my posts to make them more clear. It isn't my fault the forums have a delay on the edit history feature.

Please stop spamming threads with your delusions about me. You can indeed redeem yourself by stopping this childish behavior.

[Gloomlord]

We all know there's a window of time to edit a post before the forum recognises it and notifies at the bottom of a post. If you know this, then stop doing this and alert people to your edits. It's not difficult, DSM.It is your fault. Stop making excuses.

We know you do it because you are immoral. As if that wasn't clearly obvious years ago...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

We all know there's a window of time to edit a post before the forum recognises it and notifies at the bottom of a post. If you know this, then stop doing this and alert people to your edits. It's not difficult, DSM.It is your fault. Stop making excuses.

We know you do it because you are immoral. As if that wasn't clearly obvious years ago...

Glad we can agree that the forum has the previous edits history feature. Please look to it if you want to see past edits. Assuming malice for no logical reason is delusional.

Learn to not attack others, and perhaps people will be willing to have a discussion to clarify their points. As it stands, trolls like yourself simply want to twist other people's words. Therefore, edits are necessary to protect against that. You are the problem, and need to fix yourself first.

[Gloomlord]

Why do you keep talking as though some invisible audience trusts you and your behaviour?

Nobody is going to buy that you edit to protect yourself. Nobody.

And you are doing the classic narcissistic tactic of projecting your own evil onto others. As if we needed more evidence that you deserve to be banned at this point.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why do you keep talking as though some invisible audience trusts you and your behaviour?

Nobody is going to buy that you edit to protect yourself. Nobody.

And you are doing the classic narcissistic tactic of projecting your own evil onto others. As if we needed more evidence that you deserve to be banned at this point.

He still hasn't found a single post where I called someone a troll for no reason. He doesn't realize that his ideas about me are delusions.

[Gloomlord]

Let's humour you for a moment and say Troxx is a troll...

Whenever someone gets pissed off with you, you call them a "troll". Every.Single.Time.

The word legitimately has no meaning anymore. What is a "troll" other than a person getting exasperated with your behaviour?

Notice how I said you call them a troll when they get fed up with you? I never said you call them a troll for no reason.

You're trying to pull out the most desperate and sleazy tactics imaginable, but they're all failing, DSM.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Notice how I said you call them a troll when they get fed up with you? I never said you call them a troll for no reason.

You're trying to pull out the most desperate and sleazy tactics imaginable, but they're all failing, DSM.

So now you admit they were trolling, and thus calling them a troll was justified. The reason why they are trolling is irrelevant to the fact that they are trolling or have a pattern of trolling behavior.

[Gloomlord]

The word legitimately has no meaning anymore. What is a "troll" other than a person getting exasperated with your behaviour?

You know what a troll is, right? It's a person deliberately trying to be incendiary for amusement -- not a person calling you an idiot because they're angry with you.

You can argue that is misconduct, but it is not automatically "trolling". "Trolling" is a very subjective term to begin with, and it can be used in the same manner as "I'm offended" to shut down a conversation the person does not like.

I don't even know why I'm saying this anymore. Maybe I hope the moderators can finally recognise that you are so willfully obtuse that you can no longer be shielded by "innocence" and remove you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You know what a troll is, right? It's a person deliberately trying to be incendiary for amusement -- not a person calling you an idiot because they're angry with you.

You can argue that is misconduct, but it is not automatically "trolling". "Trolling" is a very subjective term to begin with, and it can be used in the same manner as "I'm offended" to shut down a conversation the person does not like.

I don't even know why I'm saying this anymore. Maybe I hope the moderators can finally recognise that you are so willfully obtuse that you can no longer be shielded by "innocence" and remove you.

It is amazing you try to define trolling while simultaneously claiming that trolling is so subjective it's hard to define in the same post.

As you can see, he doesn't understand how trolling works, and thus cannot see how he is the troll.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)

Here is the definition. When you lie about other posters and attack them with off topic nonsense, those are two clearly defined examples of trolling. You are doing this in an attempt to manipulate the perception of others to discredit me. You do this because you cannot win a debate via facts and logic.

If you could win the debate correctly, this wouldn't be neccessary.

It is also amazing that you think I am the one trying to shut down conversation, when you are the one actively asking for me to be banned lol. You are the censor here, not me.

[Toxigen]

autobot DSM preparing the cum cannons

[bcbrown]

The forum has a feature where you can see past edits. If you think I am trying to edit posts before that occurs to manipulate others, that is just silly. I edit my posts to make them more clear. It isn't my fault the forums have a delay on the edit history feature.

Are you saying it is possible to see prior versions of a post pre-edit? I don't know about that, how does it work?

[Gloomlord]

You know, one time on the Blizzard forums, I accused (rightfully so) Blizzard of hiring paid shills to control dissent. I was then banned for "trolling".

It's subjective, because you can't objectively prove a person is being inflammatory for the mere sake of it. It's often just an excuse to be malevolent yourself. The Wikipedia article you linked even says it is subjective.

So, how can you prove that a person insulting you is doing so out of some desire to frustrate you, rather than them being frustrated with you?

Let me talk to this invisible audience for a second! As you can see, DSM has failed to demonstrate his points, and resorts to underhanded tactics. This demonstrates that should not be granted respect.

[Toxigen]

back in my day trolling was an art form

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you saying it is possible to see prior versions of a post pre-edit? I don't know about that, how does it work?

Not at all. You need to read my post again. You have a bad habit misreading posts.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You know, one time on the Blizzard forums, I accused (rightfully so) Blizzard of hiring paid shills to control dissent. I was then banned for "trolling".

If you acted the way you do here on the Blizzard forums, I can see why they banned you. Over 80% of your posts here are off-topic insults and lies. That is typically against ToS, including on the P99 forums.

When was the last time you posted on-topic in a neutral or positive way?

[Gloomlord]

Damn! You picked out the tidbit about my time on Blizzard forums, and decided to ignore the rest of my post? Why am I not surprised?

It's almost like you don't want to recognise you lost another argument, correct?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Damn! You picked out the tidbit about my time on Blizzard forums, and decided to ignore the rest of my post? Why am I not surprised?

It's almost like you don't want to recognise you lost another argument, correct?

As you can see, he cannot rebut my point about his proven bad behavior. Let's take a look at another part of your post:


So, how can you prove that a person insulting you is doing so out of some desire to frustrate you, rather than them being frustrated with you?

Using this logic, you cannot prove I am some malicious solopsist or whatever nonsense you believe. Nobody can definitievely prove what another person is thinking, as that information is inaccessible.

I can prove someone has a pattern of trolling behavior via the post history. Over 80% of your posts are attacking me, while completely ignoring the topic at hand. I never start this. You are always the one to instigate these back and forths.

[Toxigen]

this is fun lets go another 20 pages

[Gloomlord]

No, I can't prove it in an objective sense. Correct. It's just my opinion you're a solipsist.

The fact you keep bringing up how most of my post count is about calling you out, then this also does not prove anything in an objective sense.

I don't think you're quite intelligent enough to understand what the word "objective" and "subjective" means.

It is my subjective opinion that, yes, you do indeed "start this". And it takes two to tango, so you have no reason to blame me for these back and forths. I am not forcing you to do anything.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No, I can't prove it in an objective sense. Correct. It's just my opinion you're a solipsist.

The fact you keep bringing up how most of my post count is about calling you out, then this also does not prove anything in an objective sense.

I don't think you're quite intelligent enough to understand what the word "objective" and "subjective" means.

It is my subjective opinion that, yes, you do indeed "start this". And it takes two to tango, so you have no reason to blame me for these back and forths. I am not forcing you to do anything.

These are my first two posts in the thread:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674543&postcount=2

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674571&postcount=6

They are both on topic, and I admit to my mistake/lack of knowledge when I am proven wrong.

These are your first two posts:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3676311&postcount=111

Can DSM just leave the forums already? I just...don't want this creature to be on the forums anymore.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3676366&postcount=113

How many different people now have insulted you and called you out? I've lost count. It must be over 20+ people by now.

Could it just be that you're a solipsistic narcissist, rather than me being a troll?

No, seriously! This isn't a snappy insult I'm throwing. Think about it for one second.

Can you objectively agree that I am on topic and not starting a fight, while you are objectively coming into this thread specifically to attack me, while completely ignoring the topic at hand?

[Gloomlord]

You make claims we consider to be incorrect and sabotaging to a new player constantly. We call you out on it, in varying degrees of harshness, and then you claim to be the victim.

The question has already been answered. You were in the topic, being the pathetic child you are, so I expressed my complete and utter exasperation with your behaviour and how you're allowed to roam freely. You call it an "attack", but had you put me on ignore, this conversation would not be happening right now.

We both have subjective opinions about why the other is here, you fool.

What actually is objective here is that feign death does indeed have an error message.

You could have simply said "Whoops! My mistake. Guess I completely overlooked that one" instead of trying to save face. It could have been a lesson for you to stop going into threads trying to be a know-nothing know-it-all , but alas, you are beyond all help.

We're revolving around something we know already because you are an arrogant sociopath. Just my opinion. Take it or leave it. I would never have engaged with you otherwise.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You make claims we consider to be incorrect and sabotaging to a new player constantly. We call you out on it, in varying degrees of harshness, and then you claim to be the victim.

The question has already been answered. You were in the topic, being the pathetic child you are, so I expressed my complete and utter exasperation with your behaviour and how you're allowed to roam freely. You call it an "attack", but had you put me on ignore, this conversation would not be happening right now.

We both have subjective opinions about why the other is here, you fool.

What actually is objective here is that feign death does indeed have an error message.

You could have simply said "Whoops! My mistake. Guess I completely overlooked that one" instead of trying to save face. It could have been a lesson for you to stop going into threads trying to be a know-nothing know-it-all , but alas, you are beyond all help.

We're revolving around something we know already because you are an arrogant sociopath. Just my opinion. Take it or leave it. I would never have engaged with you otherwise.

As you can see, he has admitted to attacking me in an off-topic manner.

He is also lying about me not admitting I was wrong. I admitted to it in my second post. You can check the post history https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674571&postcount=6 . Discussing the topic further is not saving face, that is just your biased and unproven opinion. You do not get to force people to stop discussing something simply because they were wrong about one thing. That doesn't logically mean they are wrong about everything.

He is also lying about me sabotaging new players. The only people who do that are proven liars and trolls, because they would rather lie to people than admit they were wrong. Troxx denying the use of /con as a valid strategy is a simple one. Claiming there are no scenarios in which the "fallen to the ground" message does not appear is another. People can test in game to see multiple scenarios where the "fallen to the ground message" does not appear, yet they are being attacked by the mob anyway. You don't need to take my word for it.

Clear cut trolling by definition. This is probably why you were banned on other forums.

[Gloomlord]

You did "admit" you were wrong in a very weaselly way that suggested the message was so rare that it was unreliable. Hence why Troxx is mocking you for using /con on the mob to see if it scowls -- because that's completely pointless.

Also, I would like to remind you that calling me a troll to undermine my arguments is what we call an "ad hominem". You should be very thankful I was open enough about being banned on Blizzard forums -- something you automatically assumed I deserved without knowing the full context.

You only go for underhanded moves because you know you're wrong. Am I right?

Edit: in regards to your edit, we already told you why a FD can fail without the innate chance of "falling to the ground". You had a spell cast on you, or you left autoattack on by mistake.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You did "admit" you were wrong in a very weaselly way that suggested the message was so rare that it was unreliable. Hence why Troxx is mocking you for using /con on the mob to see if it scowls -- because that's completely pointless.


Your opinion that it was "weaselly" is unfounded. The fact that 80% of your posts are specifically attacking me proves you have a bias against me, which means you have a pre-disposition to look at everything I say in a negative light. 70 "fallen to the ground" messages out of 3221 FD attempts is rare. I am not sure why you are suggesting otherwise.

Using /con is a great way to check if the mob is still aggroed on you while you are FD, because you can check if they are still threatening/scowling. Your opinion on whether or not you like to use it is irrelevant to it's factual usefulness. Please do not try to obfuscate facts because you want to be right or troll others.


Also, I would like to remind you that calling me a troll to undermine my arguments is what we call an "ad hominem". You should be very thankful I was open enough about being banned on Blizzard forums -- something you automatically assumed I deserved without knowing the full context.

You only go for underhanded moves because you know you're wrong. Am I right?

You have no arguments to undermine. None of your posts have been related to this topic. You are literally just attacking me unprovoked with biased and unproven opinions. You yourself admit that they are just opinions about me. I am simply defending myself from these accusations. There is plenty of evidence to establish that you have a pattern of trolling on these forums, and you admitted to being banned on another forum.


Edit: in regards to your edit, we already told you why a FD can fail without the innate chance of "falling to the ground". You had a spell cast on you, or you left autoattack on by mistake.

You can riposte at the same time while FDing, which will result in a failure without a message. You cannot turn off ripostes. This is one scenario in which you will get a failure without a message.

Also, I am not sure why you are saying "we told you FD can fail without the 'fallen to the ground' message". That is what I have been saying lol. The entire debate was that there are indeed scenarios in which FD fails without a message, and therefore the message is unreliable. This is one reason why /con is useful.

[Toxigen]

if you arent yolo jump spinning away from mobs before you FD are you even playing monk

[Gloomlord]

You are making another ad hominem again. Shut up about my post count. It means absolutely nothing to this discussion.

We told you how a FD can be failed via player error, rather than FD's innate chance of failing. So, do you admit that you're wrong or do you not? If you admit that, then don't try to justify your mistake by suggesting that a natural FD failure has a chance of failing to show on the logs.

I don't know why I, or anyone else, has to keep telling you why you're wrong and/or why you need to stop behaving the way you do. If we're trolls, then put us on ignore and go away.

[Troxx]

Who are you talking to, exactly?

Didn’t you know? He is talking to the silent majority who are feverishly clicking refresh on this thread, ready to suckle at the teat of DSM’s bottomless wisdom. You know, all those “new guys” who are in desperate need of p99 knowledge nuggets.


https://media4.giphy.com/media/lOKeRX2jFoV2M/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952earl6dqapx2sk0xv28v38ubzffpb2 cchowhdj60q&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You are making another ad hominem again. Shut up about my post count. It means absolutely nothing to this discussion.


You don't understand how ad hominem works. You are literally the one who is attacking me instead of my position.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3676311&postcount=111

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3676366&postcount=113

You started replying to this thread with ad hominem attacks against me, while completely ignoring the topic.

I am simply defending myself from your ad hominem attacks by pointing out that you have a pattern of trolling me, and your post history clearly shows this. Well over 500 posts specifically attacking me is pretty damning evidence, especially when your total post count is 628.


We told you how a FD can be failed via player error, rather than FD's innate chance of failing. So, do you admit that you're wrong or do you not? If you admit that, then don't try to justify your mistake by suggesting that a natural FD failure has a chance of failing to show on the logs.


Incorrect. I am the first person to mention this: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674543&postcount=2 . Yourself and/or other posters did not tell me this.

Do you admit that there are ways in which FD can fail without the 'fallen to the ground' message?

[Gloomlord]

Didn’t you know? He is talking to the silent majority who are feverishly clicking refresh on this thread, ready to suckle at the teat of DSM’s bottomless wisdom. You know, all those “new guys” who are in desperate need of p99 knowledge nuggets.


https://media4.giphy.com/media/lOKeRX2jFoV2M/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952earl6dqapx2sk0xv28v38ubzffpb2 cchowhdj60q&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

And yet he feeds those poor people false information. Those poor newbies...

I feel sorry for anyone who actually took his incredibly stupid advice of putting starting points into INT as Shadowknight.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And yet he feeds those poor people false information. Those poor newbies...

I feel sorry for anyone who actually took his incredibly stupid advice of putting starting points into INT as Shadowknight.

As you can see, he cannot rebut my previous post https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3676613&postcount=191 . He resorts to more ad hominem attacks and lies instead. He also doesn't understand how Shadowknight point distributions work when it comes to Min/Maxing.

[Toxigen]

keep fighting the good fight DSM

someday you'll have them all agreeing in unison...Jesus didn't save the world on the first day

[Troxx]

I imagine DSM every morning getting ready to do battle on a 25 year old elf sim message board be like …

https://media4.giphy.com/media/bfKbFdoV01zD8aG7Hv/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952lmwe5obydabw82odf8q02pkpint1u r6pfukwu1ta&ep=v1_videos_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=v

Suit up me hearties, yo ho!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

keep fighting the good fight DSM

someday you'll have them all agreeing in unison...Jesus didn't save the world on the first day

People don't have to agree with me. They just need to stop posting lies, spamming threads, and denying facts, so other people can get the correct information. That is the point of this section of the forums, to give people facts about the game's classes and answer questions. If you want to attack other people, go to Rants and Flames.

[Gloomlord]

You don't understand how ad hominem works. You are literally the one who is attacking me instead of my position.

Are you braindead...?

"Ad hominem" is not "You're wrong because of X reasons, you idiot" -- ad hominem is "You're wrong because I believe your character indicates you to be wrong".

My attacking your character is not in unison with my counter arguments to your claims. When I call you a sociopath, I'm still trying to refute your arguments regardless of my personal feelings.

As for the FD argument, you've already been checkmated here.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you braindead...?

"Ad hominem" is not "You're wrong because of X reasons, you idiot" -- ad hominem is "You're wrong because I believe your character indicates you to be wrong".

My attacking your character is not in unison with my counter arguments to your claims. When I call you a sociopath, I'm still trying to refute your arguments regardless of my personal feelings.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem


: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival


Please explain how this quote:

How many different people now have insulted you and called you out? I've lost count. It must be over 20+ people by now.

Could it just be that you're a solipsistic narcissist, rather than me being a troll?

No, seriously! This isn't a snappy insult I'm throwing. Think about it for one second.

Is not a personal attack, and is instead saying "You're wrong because of X reasons". This looks like an ad hominem attack to me, by definition. It was also your second post, which is off-topic.

You are literally saying: "You're wrong because I believe your character indicates you to be wrong".

[Troxx]

What if the being an idiot is the actual reason for being wrong?

[Gloomlord]

Wow, I actually genuinely think you aren't very intelligent, rather than just malevolent.

Did you not read "When I call you a sociopath, I'm still trying to refute your arguments regardless of my personal feelings."?

I'm not countering your arguments by attacking your character -- I'm countering your arguments, and I'm making my own subjective claims about your character beside it.

My first comment on this thread was not an ad hominem, because I wasn't attacking an argument full stop, you absolute idiot.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Did you not read "When I call you a sociopath, I'm still trying to refute your arguments regardless of my personal feelings."?


Take a look at this quote. It is the second post you made (your first post didn't have anything to do with the topic either):

How many different people now have insulted you and called you out? I've lost count. It must be over 20+ people by now.

Could it just be that you're a solipsistic narcissist, rather than me being a troll?

No, seriously! This isn't a snappy insult I'm throwing. Think about it for one second.

Please show me where you were refuting my arguments in addition to attacking me? Here you are clearly claiming I am wrong simply because of your opinion about me, and because other people disagree with me. Ad hominem and Argumentum ad populum rolled into one post lol. Two fallacies for the price of one.

[Gloomlord]

What if the being an idiot is the actual reason for being wrong?

Don't know if this is a joke or not, but even if a person possesses low intelligence, that's irrelevant to refuting an argument.

Regardless, DSM is indeed showing us he can't comprehend something as basic as an ad hominem. That isn't going to look good for this supposed invisible audience he keeps addressing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Don't know if this is a joke or not, but even if a person possesses low intelligence, that's irrelevant to refuting an argument.

Regardless, DSM is indeed showing us he can't comprehend something as basic as an ad hominem. That isn't going to look good for this supposed invisible audience he keeps addressing.

As you can see, he is deflecting from https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3676623&postcount=201 , where he is clearly caught using ad hominem and argumentum ad populum fallacies in the same post.

The mental gymnastics for claiming these aren't fallacies because they are somehow disagreeing with my points is just baffling. Nowhere in his first two posts did he mention the topic at all, or why he thinks I am wrong (other than ad hominem and argumentum ad populum fallacies).

[Gloomlord]

"He is deflecting from a post even though he's addressing another one in a short space of time". Yeah, good one, imbecile.

The 2nd post was not an ad hominem. I was not trying to invalidate any argument you made by attacking your character. I was trying to poke holes in your troll accusations.

You are not intelligent. You could have backed out of this thread instead of digging yourself deeper. You'll never recover now.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The 2nd post was not an ad hominem. I was not trying to invalidate any argument you made by attacking your character. I was trying to poke holes in your troll accusations

People can take a look at this post and come to their own conclusions:

How many different people now have insulted you and called you out? I've lost count. It must be over 20+ people by now.

Could it just be that you're a solipsistic narcissist, rather than me being a troll?

No, seriously! This isn't a snappy insult I'm throwing. Think about it for one second.

First sentence is argumentum ad populum, as you are trying to proclaim that multiple people disagreeing with me proves that I am wrong. It doesn't.

Second sentence is an ad hominem attack, as you are attacking my character instead of my argument.

Third sentence has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and therefore cannot be use to claim you are refuting my points. You are simply reinforcing the ad hominem attack on the second sentence.

Your first post was also an ad hominem attack:

Can DSM just leave the forums already? I just...don't want this creature to be on the forums anymore.

You are attacking me, while ignoring the topic at hand and the points I have made.

[Troxx]

As you can see, he….

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/441701048992155417/A74F95B4B21572CEBDC65E8083BF0F4513E7A95D/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false

Seriously who are you talking to??? You oscillate between talking directly to a specific person and then completely change your prose as if turning to an imaginary, unseen audience.

There’s nobody else here man. There isn’t some invisible judge or jury on the sidelines. It is literally just you and a bunch of people who already know that you’re a fuckwit.

Seek help.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Seriously who are you talking to??? You oscillate between talking directly to a specific person and then completely change your prose as if turning to an imaginary, unseen audience.

There’s nobody else here man. There isn’t some invisible judge or jury on the sidelines. It is literally just you and a bunch of people who already know that you’re a fuckwit.

Seek help.

As you can see, Troxx continues to concede via trolling. His signature and location just show that he must resort to attacking others instead of using facts and logic to win the debate. It is sad.

[Toxigen]

Seriously who are you talking to???

The High Elf Court of Forum Etiquette, obviously.

Arbitration has begun.

Step aside Troxxy-boy, the big guns are about to fire.

[Gloomlord]

Notice how I did not claim "because the majority of people disagree with you, that means you are intrinsically wrong"? I was not trying to prove anything in an objective sense.

I actually pointed out how you, actually, may be the incendiary one. You calling me a troll, also, does not "prove anything". I am merely very angry with you.

The first post was also not an ad hominem, you blithering moron. Proclaiming that I want you to leave was not attack on your character or your arguments.

God, you're so stupid.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Notice how I did not claim "because the majority of people disagree with you, that means you are intrinsically wrong"? I was not trying to prove anything in an objective sense.


If that wasn't your intent, then simply do not post it at all. The only reason to post something like that is to use the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.


I actually pointed out how you, actually, may be the incendiary one. You calling me a troll, also, does not "prove anything". I am merely very angry with you.


You factually have 500+ posts out of 630 posts specifically attacking me. This is over 80% of your entire post history. That proves a clear pattern of trolling. You being angry just further reinforces the idea that your opinions are not fact based, but rather feelings based.


The first post was also not an ad hominem, you blithering moron. Proclaiming that I want you to leave was not attack on your character or your arguments.


Why would you want me to leave if you weren't attacking my character? If you were attacking my points, why did you choose to not mention any of them in your first post?


God, you're so stupid.

Another ad hominem to add to the growing list of ad hominem you have made in this thread.

[Troxx]

As you can see, Troxx continues to concede via trolling. His signature and location just show that he must resort to attacking others instead of using facts and logic to win the debate. It is sad.

Again …

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/441701048992155417/A74F95B4B21572CEBDC65E8083BF0F4513E7A95D/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false

Step aside Troxxy-boy, the big guns are about to fire.

Hmm?

Now I’m curious!

[Gloomlord]

Is DSM so intellectually stunted he can't see how an insult is not, by itself, an ad hominem?

Is he not capable of realising that it's only an "argumentum ad populum" when I try to use the majority as a counter argument, rather than a subjective observation that people are actually are not banding together in a conspiracy to sabotage DSM for our amusement, but that he's actually just an annoying little shit who rubs people up the wrong way?

All I'm saying is that you can't accuse someone of being a troll like it means something, which he somehow thinks it does.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Is DSM so intellectually stunted he can't see how an insult is not, by itself, an ad hominem?

If you admit that you were insulting me without also trying to refute my points, then you have admitted to trolling lol. Remember how you were trying to claim you weren't a troll earlier because you were trying to refute my points? You can't have it both ways. If you are somehow trying to refute my points, it is an ad hominem. If you are just trying to insult me, you are trolling.

When I call you a sociopath, I'm still trying to refute your arguments regardless of my personal feelings.

[Gloomlord]

So you've never ever insulted someone in your life who you feel has stepped out of line? Are you a troll then, you self-righteous hypocrite?

You know the only reason I can think of why you're kept here is because the people in charge must think you're something akin to a circus clown. People on other forums I've gone to have been banned for far FAR less.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So you've never ever insulted someone in your life who you feel has stepped out of line? Are you a troll then, you self-righteous hypocrite?

You know the only reason I can think of why you're kept here is because the people in charge must think you're something akin to a circus clown. People on other forums I've gone to have been banned for far FAR less.

As you can see, he has admitted to insulting me without also trying to refute my points. So that argument is dead. He has chosen to admit to being a troll over using ad hominem fallacies in a debate.

500+ posts attacking me and another admission of insulting me just for the sake of it is solid evidence of trolling.

Please learn to better yourself.

[Gloomlord]

I shall take this as a concession of your defeat, DSM.

P.S You would still be calling me a troll right now if this was my first time posting on this forum, so cut the shut, you little twat.

[Troxx]

I’ll second that.

Thank you for conceding DSM.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I shall take this as a concession of your defeat, DSM.

P.S You would still be calling me a troll right now if this was my first time posting on this forum, so cut the shut, you little twat.

You still havent provided a single post showing me calling someone a troll who wasn't trolling. That is the real consession here. Repeating what I have said in the past is just another bit of nonsense.

[Gloomlord]

You really have to admire the way he avoids accountability by claiming that he never called someone a troll who wasn't trolling, even though it's been established a mere insult alone does not and should not constitute someone as a "troll".

Your stupidity is a boon, DSM. It enables you to endure this world...

...and yourself.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You really have to admire the way he avoids accountability by claiming that he never called someone a troll who wasn't trolling, even though it's been established a mere insult alone does not and should not constitute someone as a "troll".

Your stupidity is a boon, DSM. It enables you to endure this world...

...and yourself.

Thank you for continuing to concede. You have no evidence to suggest that I call people trolls when they aren't trolling. 500+ posts out of 630 insulting a specific user goes far beyond an occasional insult here and there lol.

My speculation is that you have fudged the definition of trolling in your mind to support your theory that you were wrongfully banned on the Blizzard forums. It's a defense mechanism. You clearly have anger issues and tendencies to attack other people, which is supported by your post history here. Again, that is probably the real reason for your ban.

[Gloomlord]

If you want to get into the Blizzard forums, sure:

Blizzard employ people to control dissent. They're called shills. Being banned had nothing to do with my anger, but rather how much danger I could pose to expose their evil. "Trolling" is just a convenient excuse to shut down a person, because it's a term so subjective as to have almost no merit whatsoever.

And you're demonstrating that right now. Repeating "troll" like a broken record, like you think it's a magic word that contains power, makes you look like an idiot.

You remind me of a shill with the sheer malevolence and stupidity. We should all be grateful that you do not have any power on this forum in any manner, unlike a regular forum shill.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you want to get into the Blizzard forums, sure:

Blizzard employ people to control dissent. They're called shills. Being banned had nothing to do with my anger, but rather how much danger I could pose to expose their evil. "Trolling" is just a convenient excuse to shut down a person, because it's a term so subjective as to have almost no merit whatsoever.

And you're demonstrating that right now. Repeating "troll" like a broken record, like you think it's a magic word that contains power, makes you look like an idiot.

You remind me of a shill with the sheer malevolence and stupidity. We should all be grateful that you do not have any power on this forum in any manner, unlike a regular forum shill.

You are basically taking out your anger about being banned on the Blizzard forums out on me.

That is why you are trying to compare me to the Blizzard employee who banned you.

I don't have any evidence to prove why you were banned over there. You could be 100% right, but we only know your side of the story.

Based on your behavior here, I can see why you would get banned though. This is assuming you acted the same way over there as you do over here. You basically only log on to attack me, and your post history proves it. That is against the forum rules.

[Duik]

Seriously who are you talking to???

He is addressing the same people muskrat was when he said the world would judge when twatter goes broke from the woke.

The world.
Not adding anything to the subject. It has been answered already. This is just an observation.
I am also not commenting on whether you like ole' muskrat or are muskrat. So please call this trolling. It seems to help you believe everyone is attacking you so you can "defend" yourself.

DSM: Mommy all the interwebs trolls are attacking me again.
DSM's Mommy: Nevermind! You are my good strong boy. Now go gettem tiger!

Now that last bit was a personal attack.

[Gloomlord]

What...?

I'm taking my anger out on you because of you alone.

DSM, you should be exceedingly thankful you're even allowed to be here. So many people on this forum wish you'd just go away forever. You have a lot of gall to act indignant...

[Toxigen]

are ya winnin, son?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What...?

I'm taking my anger out on you because of you alone.

Based on your post history, I disagree. I appreciate that you have given out bits of information over your time. It builds a proper picture of why you are acting in this anti-social way.

Seek help with your anger managenent issues. Let go of the past issues you've had with the Blizzard forums. Not everybody is a moderator out to get you.

I know you can improve yourself. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

[Gloomlord]

I don't think you're a troll per se, but I do think you act deliberately annoying in order to frustrate people when they dare to oppose you.

Doesn't make you a troll, but it does make you a complete fuckwit. Is that...better?

The post history does indeed "prove" that you really do annoy me enough to break my usual silence on the forums.

I know you cannot improve yourself. The first step is admitting you're beyond all hope, and the final step is leaving these forums.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don't think you're a troll per se...
...Doesn't make you a troll

Agreed! I am not a troll.

...I do think you act deliberately annoying in order to frustrate people when they dare to oppose you.

...it does make you a complete fuckwit. Is that...better?

The post history does indeed "prove" that you really do annoy me enough to break my usual silence on the forums.

I know you cannot improve yourself. The first step is admitting you're beyond all hope, and the final step is leaving these forums.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, wrong as it may be.

In reality I am just trying to get people the correct information, and show them that the trolls are not completely unopposed on these forums.

It's a real conversation killer to be too afraid to post on these forums, for fear of being attacked by a multitude of trolls. Hopefully more people fight back, so conversations can flow easily. I don't want to see the P99 forums die due to trolls.

As I said before, I appreciate the information you have given. I urge you to seek help with your anger management issues, and to let go of the past grievances you have with the Blizzard employees.

[Troxx]

In reality I am just trying to get people the correct information.

There is no fail message for FD. You need to /con the mobs to check if your FD succeded or failed.

Sage advice. Information = totally correct. A+ work.

https://forums.boxofficetheory.com/gallery/image/54-house-head-nodgif/?do=download

[Gloomlord]

Here we go again.

You spread false and/or dubious information, we call you out on it, you are too stubborn to admit that you are wrong, then we insult you in some varying manner. The overwhelming majority of those comments are not born out of a desire of amusement, hence it is not "trolling".

Stop using that term already. If you are too afraid to post on these forums, then you might need to consider that it's you acting in bad faith maliciously, rather than a conspiracy of people trying to hurt you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Sage advice. Information = totally correct. A+ work.


As the post history shows, I admitted I didn't know about the "fallen to the ground" message. Cherry picking data is not a good look for you.

I also showed that the message is unreliable, and thus you should know about other ways to check if FD failed, such as /con.

You are continuing to try and provide misinformation and trolling. Claiming /con should never be used for example is obvious nonsense.

Here we go again.

You spread false and/or dubious information, we call you out on it, you are too stubborn to admit that you are wrong, then we insult you in some varying manner.

You have no evidence to suggest I am spreading false/dubious information. Being wrong or not knowing something is not doing this. Especially since I admit to being wrong, as the post history shows. Please do not let your anger management issues cloud your judgement.


The overwhelming majority of those comments are not born out of a desire of amusement, hence it is not "trolling".

Stop using that term already. If you are too afraid to post on these forums, then you might need to consider that it's you acting in bad faith maliciously, rather than a conspiracy of people trying to hurt you.


I will continue to call people out for trolling when they troll, including when you do it. I am sorry that you have a traumatic past with being banned on the Blizzard forum. Please do not let this cloud your judgement either. Let the past go.

[Gloomlord]

But you just claimed you're trying to get the right information out, even though you demonstrated you had absolutely no idea about the FD failure message. You failed from the very get go. And that wouldn't be such a huge problem if it weren't for the fact you keep doing this in so many topics.

In that way, a person may indeed be inclined to believe you are a troll here for spreading false misinformation deliberately. Did you think about that?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

But you just claimed you're trying to get the right information out, even though you demonstrated you had absolutely no idea about the FD failure message. You failed from the very get go.

You don't seem to understand how conversations work. If someone says something incorrect, provide counter evidence to prove them wrong. This counter evidence ends up getting the correct information out to other people. The process of conversation (when done without trolling) uncovers the truth. Other people have been wrong about information in the past on these forums, including Troxx. I don't see you accusing them of providing false information.

It doesn't matter who was right, it just matters that the correct information was given. The correct information was given.

This conversation also uncovered that people do not know about using /con to check FD status. They also didn't seem to know that the "fallen to the ground" message does not always show up. More useful information was uncovered.

The on-topic information was correct, and thus the on-topic portion of the thread was a success.

The only bloat that was incurred on this thread came from unprovoked attacks from posters like Troxx and yourself.

Please learn to control your anger so you do not spam threads.

[Troxx]

As the post history shows, I admitted I didn't know about the "fallen to the ground" message. Cherry picking data is not a good look for you.

Yet you still insisted that /con was the best way to verify the flop succeeded because the message was not reliable. You know … the message you didn’t even know existed. Instead you logged in and tried to find a situation where you didn’t get the message and FD didn’t work … by not turning off autoattack. Every half-wit, mouth breathing moron on this server who has played a FD character already knows to turn of auto attack.

And apparently all half-wit, mouth breathing morons on this server except you knew about the “has fallen to ground message”.

Not sage advice. Not correct information.

The only appropriate response was:

“Oh shit I was totally wrong. I did find an alternative, backwards and inefficient way to handle this situation. I admit I was wrong. My way was A WAY to do it but I concede that it isn’t the ideal way to do it. Sorry for giving the OP bad advice.”

[Gloomlord]

So you didn't admit or you did admit that you didn't know about the error message? Which is it? If you didn't know, then an admission of your ignorance and leaving the thread was all that was required. You had no reason to stay except to defend your fragile ego -- this was not out of some magnanimous desire to get the information out, you liar.

As I keep saying,you keep doing this across the forums. It needs to stop already.

"You're angry"? Okay. So what? Because you're a sociopath, DSM.

Please learn to control your anti-social behaviour so you do not hurt people.

[Gloomlord]

The only appropriate response was:

“Oh shit I was totally wrong. I did find an alternative, backwards and inefficient way to handle this situation. I admit I was wrong. My way was A WAY to do it but I concede that it isn’t the ideal way to do it. Sorry for giving the OP bad advice.”

And yet the little shit tries to save face in an incredibly mealy-mouthed way, and even tries to say /con is still a valid method, even though you and the others proved that was completely meaningless.

This isn't autism -- this is being a narcissistic sociopath. No, seriously! What the hell is wrong with this guy?!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So you didn't admit or you did admit that you didn't know about the error message? Which is it?


https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674571&postcount=6

Interesting! I never noticed that actually.

This was on the first page. It's quite cut and dry that I admitted to not knowing about the message. Not sure how you missed it.


If you didn't know, then an admission of your ignorance and leaving the thread was all that was required.

This is incorrect. There is no rule or etiquette on the forum that stipulates a person who is wrong must leave a thread. If that was the case you would be asking Troxx to leave as well.

Please stop imposing random rules on the forums to try and support your bad behavior. Seek help for your anger management issues.

Yet you still insisted that /con was the best way to verify the flop succeeded because the message was not reliable. You know … the message you didn’t even know existed. Instead you logged in and tried to find a situation where you didn’t get the message and FD didn’t work … by not turning off autoattack. Every half-wit, mouth breathing moron on this server who has played a FD character already knows to turn of auto attack.


You still ignore the simple fact that an ill-timed riposte can break FD too, without a "fallen to the ground" message. You cannot turn off ripostes. Your continued deflection from this fact by insulting me is clear evidence you have lost this debate, and are flailing. It's ok to admit that /con works just fine. I am not sure why you have to keep claiming otherwise. /con has the added benefit of being retrievable however many times you want. This is useful if you miss the "fallen to the ground" message, or the "fallen to the ground" message doesn't appear due to fail cases that do not generate said message.

[Troxx]

I’ve never seen a riposte break FD. Ever. Not saying it isn’t possible but I’ve never seen it. Regardless, under such circumstance you would still know immediately that your FD failed because the mobs is actively wailing on you.

Do YOU need to /con something if it’s actively beating on you DSM?

You were wrong. Unfortunately you’re to proud (or stupid) to admit it.



The only appropriate response was:

“Oh shit I was totally wrong. I did find an alternative, backwards and inefficient way to handle this situation. I admit I was wrong. My way was A WAY to do it but I concede that it isn’t the ideal way to do it. Sorry for giving the OP bad advice.”

I bet we can get another 30 pages out of this bulllshit lol

[Gloomlord]

You leave the thread because you clearly had no idea what you were talking about to begin with. You did not have, and did not continue to have, anything worth of merit to give anymore at that point. I'm not imposing rules, you fucking idiot. I'm saying that would have been the humble thing to do.

Seek help for your sociopathy issues.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I’ve never seen a riposte break FD. Ever. Not saying it isn’t impossible but I’ve never seen it.


It is indeed possible.


Regardless, under such circumstance you would still know immediately that your FD failed because the mobs is actively wailing on you.


Thank you for supporting my position that there are alternative ways to check if FD has failed other than the "fallen to the ground" message. This has been a part of my argument. There is no reason to attack me since you obviously agree with me.


Do YOU need to /con something if it’s actively beating on you DSM?


No! Nor did I ever claim otherwise.

I am not sure where you are disagreeing with me. All you need to do is admit that /con is a perfectly fine method to check if FD has failed. Since you can /con on demand, regardless of whether the "fallen to the ground" message has appeared or not, it is indeed more reliable. You can use both too of course!

You leave the thread because you clearly had no idea what you were talking about to begin with. You did not have, and did not continue to have, anything worth of merit to give anymore at that point. I'm not imposing rules, you fucking idiot. I'm saying that would have been the humble thing to do.

Seek help for your sociopathy issues.

The only person who should exit the thread is yourself, as none of your posts are actually on topic. You have contributed nothing other than spam. Please seek help for your anger management issues. I am not the Blizzard employee who banned you from their forums.

[Gloomlord]

Guess what? Noone should be talking about the topic anymore because it's already been resolved. You contributed nothing but your self-righteous, egotistical damage control, so how was that anything else but spam?

Why do you keep bringing up the Blizzard forum incident like it were some horrific low blow you're exploiting? It just makes you look evil and stupid. Wow! Double whammy there!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Guess what? Noone should be talking about the topic anymore because it's already been resolved. You contributed nothing but your self-righteous, egotistical damage control, so how was that anything else but spam?

Why do you keep bringing up the Blizzard forum incident like it were some horrific low blow you're exploiting? It just makes you look evil and stupid. Wow! Double whammy there!

Under that logic you shouldn't have posted in the first place anyway. You were late to the discussion and off-topic. So please take your own advise and exit the thread. Continuing to spam it with insults is not helping.

[Gloomlord]

If you can contribute useless damage control and then claim it is "on-topic", then I can claim that you need to leave the forums for good.

Fuck off.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you can contribute useless damage control and then claim it is "on-topic", then I can claim that you need to leave the forums for good.

Fuck off.

Under your own logic:

Guess what? Noone should be talking about the topic anymore because it's already been resolved.

You have admitted that you shouldn't have posted off-topic nonsense into a thread that was already resolved. You came into the thread late, and didn't post on-topic. The vast majority of posts you made in this thread were off-topic insults of some kind.

Please take your own advise and stop spamming threads in this manner. Lead by example. If you do not attack me, I will not defend myself with a response. Everybody wins.

[Jimjam]

if you arent yolo jump spinning away from mobs before you FD are you even playing monk

proper extra from Platoon style FD. Maybe tie an audio trigger of Wilhelm scream to your FD macro for added effect.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

proper extra from Platoon style FD. Maybe tie an audio trigger of Wilhelm scream to your FD macro for added effect.

Lol the wilhelm scream would be pretty good.

[enjchanter]

I've never fd failed and didn't know it
Hope this helps

[Toxigen]

I've never fd failed and didn't know it
Hope this helps

how do you not have a near full BiS monk yet

[enjchanter]

how do you not have a near full BiS monk yet

Enchanter is better

Plus I keep getting kicked out of raid guilds

[Toxigen]

Enchanter is better

Plus I keep getting kicked out of raid guilds

lmao