- 4,451
- 1,947
Lmao because you refused to give any evidence. It was just a repeated argument from probability with no backing.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Question
- Thread starter Livinmeme
- Start date
- Status
- 7,758
- 3,762
- Thread starter
- #42
you know that lying is bad because i in fact did give information my entire point was that they constantly figth because is the entire premise of the game you know i even said it like 20 times in the thread
- 7,758
- 3,762
- Thread starter
- #43
- 4,451
- 1,947
Yes, a continued argument from probability. You proved nothing. Drop this.
- 7,758
- 3,762
- Thread starter
- #45
ironically them never using the 9-A weapons is like in the ******* trillons so.. there is that
also the wiki normally use the feats who are more likelly to hapens and well.. you know
anyway dont derail this and i also debunk the probality
- 14,673
- 20,384
I mean it’s pretty darn obvious this thread is about TF2, I don’t see how he’s derailing
- 7,758
- 3,762
- Thread starter
- #47
he is derailing because he is trying to debunk a argument that i made in the other tread
- 4,451
- 1,947
Ok, fine. I'll stop being civil since you don't seem to understand.
You have to ******* PROVE definitively that they can tank it. There's no ******* upgrades being accepted anytime soon because "it's probably happened", it's an argument from probability and will never be accepted here, no matter how logical or good you think it is. Your argument is worthless, and you will never get that accepted, because it's fallacious guesswork. This circular argumentation has gone on long enough and you need to accept that that's not how it's done here. I don't care if you don't like it. That's how it is.
You have to ******* PROVE definitively that they can tank it. There's no ******* upgrades being accepted anytime soon because "it's probably happened", it's an argument from probability and will never be accepted here, no matter how logical or good you think it is. Your argument is worthless, and you will never get that accepted, because it's fallacious guesswork. This circular argumentation has gone on long enough and you need to accept that that's not how it's done here. I don't care if you don't like it. That's how it is.
- 7,758
- 3,762
- Thread starter
- #49
man you didnt read what they said or what they said that the feat could be used focus on used also your whole argument is they Maybe never got hit who is luck and that is by himself a extremlly horrible argument
look man your whole argument is maybe that didnt happened the wiki uses the logic who is less based in luck and definetly getting hit by those 9-A atacks is far far far less depenent in luck that never hitted, and feats who are off screan can be accepted
i am leaving this discussion because at this point is gona be become toxic
- 1,808
- 2,809
I think that we need to have this discussion be stopped and closed. This is getting unproductive.
Many users are giving very good answers and are being accused of derailing for some reason.
Many users are giving very good answers and are being accused of derailing for some reason.
- 7,758
- 3,762
- Thread starter
- #51
because it has nothing to do with the question in self only the argument but yeah i agree if you want to close this do it i got the answers anyway
- 4,451
- 1,947
THERE'S NO GOD DAMN FEAT. YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN IT.
I've already asked for this to be closed.
I've already asked for this to be closed.
- 7,758
- 3,762
- Thread starter
- #53
it isnt even a feat is just a scaling anyway is better to this to be closed
- 15,494
- 10,297
About the op, if someone hit u with the weapon and u can easily tank the damage without injuries or something, yes, u tanked it, and off screen feat are also valid, a great example is John Wick statement about killing 3 people with a pencil, even being Off-Screen, it is a stetement that is said several times during the movies (and he showed the feat again, but on this time, On-Screen, but the point remains the same)
- 7,758
- 3,762
- Thread starter
- #55
Nice
- 4,451
- 1,947
"Scaling"
There is no scaling. Because there's no proven feat to scale with.
There is no scaling. Because there's no proven feat to scale with.
- Status
