Rubbinns wrote on Jul 5
th, 2014 at 7:21am:
Markedly skewed and veering on the edge of attempting to mislead viewers into observational bias. A better attempt at being veracious would have a red named that doesn't move. Or hit back. Time wasted in video #1 for swf on buffs and boosts was around 10-12 seconds, roughly the same time as for video #2 of swf. However, movement was more off in the 2nd video. Double the movement time from video #1. or around Or around 24 seconds of movement to target. Also healing yourself was not present in video #1 but you did so in video #2.
I havent compared your boost delay times, and movement penalties with thf video #3. it is a waste of time to not test on a stationary non lethal target. There will be too many variables. Your need to heal and stop, your need to move to target, and targets moving back mid swing.
I agree. All of these micro-variables can be picked at ad nauseum in any video, except my movement issues in the 1:17 video actually make more of a case for SWF power.
If you think you can do better, find me a stationary target that doesn't move, doesn't hit back, is easily accessible and that has a large enough hit-point pool for a reasonable estimate. If you can come up with one, then props - that would be cool for us to use from this point forward.
But you haven't, so instead of doing a video of your own, you still have no substance to go off of other than shitty grammar.
As a result, I'll continue doing what I'm doing on the main boards and we'll see if the developers choose to interpret it.