Shadow knight aggro

[Guesty07]

Speak the truth Crede. Let bad players continue to be bad. We tried

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Guesty07 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Speak the truth Crede. Let bad players continue to be bad. We tried

You didn't try anything other than trolling. The post history is quite clear. Same with Crede unfortunately. You aren't going to convince anybody simply because you act like a child and try to force your opinion on other people.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For people interested in the truth instead of nonsense and trolling, please see this post:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=140

Strategic taunting and spamming taunt are both viable strategies, and this has yet to be disproven.

[Guesty07]

Mans so immersed in this Project he's spamming taunt like he's gone back in time to 1999 and you've just made your first character, a wood Elf warrior named Drizzit, fingers itching to give orc pawns the 1 2 combo of kick + taunt. Immersion to a whole new level

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Guesty07 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mans so immersed in this Project he's spamming taunt like he's gone back in time to 1999 and you've just made your first character, a wood Elf warrior named Drizzit, fingers itching to give orc pawns the 1 2 combo of kick + taunt. Immersion to a whole new level

I am not sure why you are so angry at the simple fact that spamming taunt can be used as a viable strategy for Knights. Is there a problem with people having more choice in a video game?

[Guesty07]

It's OK, I used to be a bad player too, in 1999.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Guesty07 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's OK, I used to be a bad player too, in 1999.

Me being a good or bad player is irrelevant in relation to facts about the game. Why are you so angry that spamming taunt is factually a viable strategy?

[Penish]

haha these are some legendary threads lol

[bcbrown]

I'm trying to constructively engage with you! I'm doing the math, just like you've asked for!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm trying to constructively engage with you! I'm doing the math, just like you've asked for!

No, you are clearly not. Nor did I ask you to do the math. You are also purposely distorting my position after I have corrected you multiple times.

You keep asking which strategy is statistically more likely to taunt, which isn't my argument, and you can check the post history. I already gave you the numbers based on the data I have.

I am simply disproving the idea that spamming taunt provides no benefit, which I have clearly done here:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=140

Spamming taunt is indeed a viable strategy.

Please stop trolling and wasting people's time by pretending to engage with people. You haven't done or said anything to prove the baseless claim that spamming taunt provides no benefit.

[bcbrown]

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.