This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The TG Nerf - 1h Fury Back Again?
Return to board index
Post by
318373
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
117099
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
252821
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
228206
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
326688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
117099
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
115427
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
318373
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
As far as buffs go here's what I think would be most fair:
All dps classes should do the same dps
self-buffed
(ie pally with BoM, Shaman w/ totems, druid with 5% crit, etc.). So outside of the raid, every class is equal. When it comes to raids, the buffs can then be shared to increase your fellow raid-members.
In the end this will even everyone's raid utility out: rogues with no group buffs, after being buffed themselves would end up doing higher dps than perhaps a druid who's +5% crit was already counted into determining "pre-raid buff" dps; a druid on the other hand would be doing slightly less dps in-raid, but would in turn be buffing the raid. AN enhancement/elemental shaman probably brings the most "buf!@#e" to the raid, so his dps would be the lowest in-raid.
So in the end every class will be wanted either for straight dps or for increasing the whole raids dps.
EDIT: ROFLMAO it edited out b-u-f-
f-a-g
-e ... no matter what it looks like they arent bringing bull!@#$ to the raid =D
Post by
53090
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Blizzard has stated in Blue posts that give all things being equal, Mages, Warlocks, Hunters, and Rogues
should
do more damage because that's all they can do. End of story. There really is no "
Should
they." They just all things being equal, do more DPS.
Just pointing out the ironies.
Post by
53090
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
grammatically
logically
fix'd
Grammatically they are both helping verbs and are the same, logically they stand for 2 different concepts.
That being said, that wasn't the point. The point is that we're dealing with hypotheticals (should, would, could), and not actualities (is, can, will). Now if this were a utopia that wouldn't be a problem...but it's not. So drawing practical conclusions out of these hypotheticals is not the most "practical" thing to do.
Post by
53090
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Actually "Should" is what is called a "Modal Auxiliary" which is a type of word that is attached to a verb to determine the mood of the sentence (ie. whether or not the mood is Hypothetical.)
Not to get too off-topic, but modal auxiliaries are a sub-set of helping verbs (which is what I said above).
However, a word can take on multiple meanings and these meanings are a part of their grammatical purpose in the sentence.
True, but not in the case of "should," which is always and in every case the grammatical past tense of "shall." The only grammatical change in the 2 instances is that in the second the verb which "should" modifies is implied ("do").
What we're dealing with here is logical equivocation.
Post by
115427
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
53090
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
115427
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
53090
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Actually, "should" just denotes a lesser degree of certainty. Its relationship to "shall" is the same as that between "will" and "would" or "can" and "could." Modal verbs don't get conjugated, so "should" is the same in any tense; past perfect: "I should have known," present: "I should go home," or future: "I should study tonight."
You're giving the meaning, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the past tense of shall. Look it up in any dictionary....
screw that, I'll just link them:
Merriam-Webster
OED
...scroll down to II Past Tense
AHD
No matter what meaning you tack onto it, it's function is always grammatically the same.
in the examples you give, it's the tense of the principle verb which is changing. Just like the helping verb "has" has a past tense "have" and even a past perfect "had"; so too the helping verb "shall" has a past tense, namely "should."
Example:
He shall have not died in vain.
He should have not died in vain.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.