let me get this straight:
You hoped for some serious discussion, so you posted some ridiculous suggestions in a way as though as they were the only real balance suggestion and direly needed, then you proceeded to basically shut down everyone who mentioned, how crappy these suggestions are, destroyed any attempt of convincing you of the crappiness of your suggestions with your ignorant behavior yet still complain about a lack of serious comments?
Dude, are you crazy?
I mean, basically at most 60% of the posters here tried to discuss the validity of your suggestions thoroughly and the rest only tried to convince you, how pointless your attempt was by making ironic statements about the nature of your post / the impact of your suggs on the game.
So what do you want more?
That's like someone proposed to launch a nuke on africa to stop the starvation there and then complained about no1 taking his opinion serious...
hmm?
i fail to see how calling the thread MY balance patch would signal that these changes are the only possible suggestions worthy of consideration...just says that these are things i would like to see done.
Even if these suggestions were as crappy as everyone seems to think (and they arent, they are just different in intent and subject, dealing with unused units rather than favored ones) the analogy would be more to someone suggesting to stop global warming by creating skypumbing ships; crazy rather than idiotic.
Such suggestions can be dealt with rationally and politely, not simply scoffed at but considered and then offering arguments as to why they are crazy. As it happens your post (beyond a short comment about the speed of wisps) was the only post that came near such a reply and u failed to deal with the basic argument i had; that of equal effect. I had to be the one to supply the argument that webbing hawks is equivalent to webbing gargs/hippo and therefore balanced or at least not without precedence.
As to thunderclap, I considered your reference to past experience a valid point, even if i required further such evidence to concede my point which was: a spell that slows move and attack 50% should have roughly twice the duration of a spell that slows both by 100%; unless there are other considerations such as the growing AOE of clap to consider, or the higher damage, so the question is: does 65 extra damage compare to 2.5 seconds of stun (compared to TC war stomp)? Not quite imo, however one might argue that clap is much stronger in level 1 than both impale and war stomp and should be weaker in level 3, given that i can concede the whole point or offer duration 3/5/7, 3/4/5 as an alternative to make the scaling more balanced, and ensure that the skill remains equally useful in higher levels as well.
