Ok, I can accept your wording, although I'll provide a final update of my wording to hopefully make it closer: ""if you like pressing the button, don't worry about suboptimal behavior because there's a minimal impact,
a single unreliable taunt."
I want to go back to the post of yours that you have been using as your initial description of your position:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatdane
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Taunt only does anything if someone else has aggro. Don't put it in a macro, you'll waste it 97% of the time. You use taunt when you need aggro and don't already have it, not to build an aggro buffer. Bad tanks blow their taunt for no reason. Good tanks save it for when they need to take aggro from someone else. If your taunt is on cooldown when you lose aggro, you played badly.
|
You are also "wasting" taunt by not using it. Taunt has a fast enough cooldown to where it can be spammed, and then used more strategically when necessary. The main benefit to spamming taunt is you can get hate back instantly if it happens to be timed right, and you don't have to think about it. This frees up your brain to focus on other things. |
Someone is describing an approach that you have not contested being more-optimal than your approach, and you reply by saying "try this less-optimal approach". By using the word "wasting" you're implicitly criticizing their approach.
Usually I contest your aspects of your position through math and logic. Here I'm commenting on tone. Can you see how it's, uh, a little provocative to, in response to a description of someone using an optimal approach, say "here's a less-optimal approach"?
If that's not the message you wanted to convey, can you reflect for a moment on why the message received is not the message intended, and whether there's a way to change the conveyance of the message in a way that makes it less possible to be interpreted so provocatively?