Why did I die?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.

[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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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/s...71&postcount=6

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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

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]

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.

[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]

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

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]

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

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:

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

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.