Oh geez, DSM, I'm so sorry. I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings or make you think I was trolling yesterday. I got a little frustrated towards the end of the evening, and I was intemperate. I apologize.
I like you! We've played together in-game, and I sincerely admire your willingness to play in-game with people who yell at you on the forums. I've always strived to engage constructively with the argument at hand, and if sometimes I fall short of that standard, well, all I can do is humbly ask forgiveness.
Anyway, if your entire argument is disproving "spamming taunt provides no benefit," then we are in 100% agreement. It provides some benefit. Absolutely. I support your position wholly. It provides 10 hate/minute. There's no significant drawbacks. It is a viable strategy.
The rest of this post is not directed at DSM. This is to set out my position, which is on a completely separate topic. I'm not concerned so much with whether a given approach provides benefits or not, I'm concerned with what is optimal. Here, I define optimal as "the approach that results in the lowest frequency of occurrences where aggro flips and the first taunt does not succeed". I believe that on this metric, although both approaches are viable, the strategy-taunt approach is optimal.
|