Quit trying to get me to understand the point you are making. I understood what you were saying the first time. It was just terribly ignorant and incorrect. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary preceded the Collins English Dictionary by almost 180 years. It was originally published in 1806 and called A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. Additionally, Merriam-Webster, Inc. has been a subsidiary of Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. (Scottish founded company) since 1964, 15 years before the first edition of the Collins English Dictionary was published. Here are some credentials of the author, Noah Webster, from Wikipedia: knew 26 languages, including Old English (Anglo-Saxon), German, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Hebrew, Arabic, and Sanskrit, graduated from Yale, studied law under a Supreme Court Justice, received a master's degree from Yale, opened two of his own schools, became a state politician, "was a lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author." He is also known as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education". Whether you Brits respect him or not is irrelevant. His name has been synonymous with the word "dictionary" long before your source was even a thought. You are still listing SYNONYMS, not giving a definition. Tossing in ANTONYMS doesn't make it a definition either. You are commenting on the viability of a team with a scrapper on it, not the viability of the scrapper as an individual. No, that makes the TEAM viable. A "viable team member" is one that stands a reasonable chance of being invited to the team. Scrappers don't stand a reasonable chance of being invited to the team, making them non-viable. The win/loss ratio of the team is an indicator of the viability of the team. Right, this is a team game. What matters to the TEAM are the results it gets. What matters to the INDIVIDUAL is getting onto the team. One is no longer an individual after joining a team, making team performance/viability irrelevant to individual viability. Scrappers cannot get onto teams, making them non-viable. I am not talking about the optimization or viability of teams. I am talking about the viability of an individual scrapper. The entire goal of a scrapper is to make it onto a team. PERIOD. That is where the goal of the individual ends. Currently, scrappers do not have a reasonable chance of getting selected for a team. This means that they are not viable. Whether this fact is because they do not optimize a team, under-perform, lack utility or look funny is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. If you would like to postulate as to why they do not stand a reasonable chance of being selected for a team, then be my guest but that isn't what the OP was asking.

The OP wasn't asking for advice. He was asking if the class was viable. The name of the thread is even "Dps Scoundrel viable again in 2.0 ?" Arguing? He asked a yes or no question. I said no and you said yes (in addition to offering unsolicited advice). I am saying why my position is correct and yours is incorrect. Key words in the definition: NEARLY THE SAME. I am disregarding them because their meanings are NEARLY the same, but not the same - they don't specify occurrence within a reasonable degree. You disregarded the definition of viable and instead chose to list synonyms because you know this and were trying to be manipulative. Unfortunately, you aren't as clever as you believe. They don't have a reasonable chance to act as a node guard because they don't have a reasonable chance to get invited to the team. This makes them non-viable. That is the point. Never contradicted myself, you just have very poor reading comprehension. I stated that an individual isn't viable simply because they are on a viable team. Individual viability is different from team viability. You were talking about scrappers node guarding in scenarios and insisted that are viable because they can node-sit. What I pointed out is that leaving a scrapper or any other player at the node is a GROUP STRATEGY. What you were talking about is the viability of the team's strategy, not the individual. The strategy of leaving a scrapper at a node is viable, the scrapper itself is not. The viability of the individual is determined by their ability to get invited to teams. Scrappers do not have a reasonable chance to join teams. This makes them non-viable. Get over YOURself, simpleton. OP didn't ask for your poor advice ("just node sit" LMFAO). He asked if the class was viable in 2.0. It is not right now and it doesn't appear that it will be in 2.0 unless more changes are made.

I haven't said anything about "best chance of success." I pointed out that you are discussing possibility and TEAM viability, not individual viability. The objective of an individual in an MMORPG is to group. Once grouped, you comprise part of a team. The objective of the team is to complete content. You acknowledge that scrappers have difficulty getting into groups. That means it is affecting their viability as they do not have a reasonable or adequate chance to group, the purpose of the individual. WHY this is the case is up for discussion. You are saying that it is because they do not optimize the group when they join. I would agree with this. What I disagree with is your assertion that simply because they CAN join a group and the TEAM is viable, that scrappers are viable. You are talking about team viability again. You are saying that TEAMS are still viable with a scrapper on them. Yes they are, but a team being viable has nothing to do with a scrapper being viable. Yeah, they were viable back before 1.2. They had a reasonable chance to group, the objective of the individual in an MMO. They are not viable now. You are still talking about TEAM viability. Also, 2nd best ninja-capper? You do realize that 2nd out of two = worst, right? Those are synonyms, not definitions. A synonym is something that is similar in meaning but not necessarily the same. Here is the definition of synonym to help you out: "one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses." Had you read the actual definitions for viable, you would see they stipulate that something has to adequate or reasonable chance of happening in order to be viable. Something doesn't have to occur in a reasonable fashion in order to be possible, it simply has to have a chance to occur. Something being possible does not translate to it being viable. You are again talking about "solo roles" within an team-based objective scenario. Everything your teammates do or don't do affects you in some way or another. What you are saying is that ranked teams with scrappers, not the scrappers themselves, are viable if the scrapper node-sits the entire game. Having a scrapper guard a node is a viable strategy for the group. FOTM re-rollers? Scoundrel and Operative were and have remained the least frequently played advanced classes since launch. Nobody gave up because it "wasn't easy." They gave up because they were playing a burst damage class whose from-stealth positional attack would hit for 2.5k on a 20k health Juggernaut, who would then perform a 10k aoe attack. That would be perfectly fine, but they had nothing else of value to offer groups seeking members. The MM had been taken out of their MMORPG. So, essentially, the reason you were being a tremendous douchebag is because you suspected the OP of secretly being a "FOTM re-roller," to the least popular advanced class in the entire MMO, whose inquiry into the future state of the class after several very hard nerfs only indicated to you that he wants "easy mode" which might potentially encourage others to create scoundrels, thereby taking away from your feelings of uniqueness? Seems rational.

Actually, one of the definitions of viable, according to Webster, is: having a reasonable chance of succeeding. Success in this instance is determined by one's ability to acquire a spot on a team and complete content (a function of being able to join a team). You were taking that definition and applying it to a team with a Scoundrel on it instead of to the Scoundrel itself. Yes, a team with a Scoundrel on it still has a reasonable, albeit diminished, chance of succeeding in its goals. Those are, however, the team's goals and success or failure is a function of group effort. Scoundrels in their current state do not have a reasonable chance of succeeding in joining teams and therefore completing content. They are not viable, and much of the reason has to do with their sub-par dps and lack of utility/usefulness. That is painted all over the SWTOR forums. It appears that you have confused the meaning of viable with that of "possible," which is kind of sad when you are trying to mock someone about the meaning of the word. In order for something to be viable, it must be reasonably or adequately possible.

^This guy doesn't know UTC is used on forums to standardize records of post entry times, and that forum activity doesn't occur in accordance with it the same way that it occurs in accordance with local times. The thread was created at April 1 3:57 PM UTC and my post was made April 3 3:03 AM UTC - a difference of less than 36 hours. This means that it still wasn't two days old, even according to forum time. In fact, it was closer to being one day old than two. You are still wrong. For someone bringing up UTC, you sure don't understand how our time recording methods work. The truth is that the only thing you really "understood" was the day of the month recorded on the post. Also, it is spelled Greenwich Mean Time and it is not the same thing as UTC, even if they are close. UTC replaced GMT because it is more accurate. A necro post is one that has been made in a thread that has remained inactive for a long period of time. You realize that less than a day and a half doesn't meet this criterion, so you have stipulated that the reference to a holiday makes it more time-sensitive. Let's examine that... If what you are saying is true, then I guess we shouldn't have had any posts in holiday threads past their respective holidays, right? At the very least, there should have been an abundance of people grossing the posters out for "necroing" if your sentiment is the prevailing sentiment of the forum population. Let's test that with a couple quick Google searches for two popular American holidays here on the forums: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=548732&page=12 http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=572445 These were just a couple among many pages of results, but I think you get the idea. I guess that blows the justification for your anal retentiveness, making it a rationalization instead of truth. Your argument has been thoroughly dismantled. My reason for posting was encourage the author to refrain from creating threads like this in the future, since no comments existed within the thread that would accomplish this effect. The real question is why the hell did you bother posting if you agree with me about the quality of this thread? Was it to show me how extremely ignorant you are, or are you so socially inept that you have to try to start and win (not in this case) internet forum battles with anyone you can in order to gain some sense of self-worth and importance? You should take your own advice and refrain from posting, "dawg."

- April 2nd in all of America when I commented... Necro post? lol! - Should have been dead before it was posted, so you are wrong again. - This thread still sucks.

Me: This thread sucks Everyone: Yeah, no kidding.

We are dodging nerfs.

You have not been stun locked by one operative because is impossible to be stun locked by a single operative. They are unable to cloak again until combat is broken once they have used Cloaking Screen. Cloaking Screen is on a 3-minute cool down (2-minutes if they spec for it). They can re-open on you a maximum of once every two-minutes which is the same length as your CC-breaker cool down. Have you thought about using your defensive cool down once they use theirs? Why shouldn't they be able to put you in a situation where you should have to use one after they used a 2-3 minute cool down ability? You also have 20+ seconds of CC immunity after they use KD+Debilitate which is more than enough time to kill the operative or escape if you are so poorly geared that they are close to killing you. A DPS operative has to stand still to heal. These heals are weak and you should be able to easily out-dps their healing. Heal-spec operatives can move and heal, but their DPS is even lower than the DPS operative's damage. You probably aren't going to solo-kill a heal-spec operative, but they aren't going to kill you either unless you stand there and try to out-last them. DPS operative has received a major nerf with every major patch that has been released. Their damage has been lowered and the cool down on their attacks have been increased. They have the worst energy mechanic in the game, which gets depleted within a few seconds of their initial strike, in addition to the lowest DPS of all the melee dps classes. All but one of their melee damage abilities have some sort of requirement (positional/stealth/tactical advantage). They are one of the worst PvP classes in the game and THE worst PvE class in the game. If encounters with lone operatives are causing you this much trouble, then perhaps you are not as good at PvP as you think you are. You must be under-geared or new to PvP.

"A stun lock (also called stunlocking) is the act of using multiple stuns and immobilizing effects in succession to prevent an enemy from fighting back or escaping." Ops have ONE STUN which lasts for 4 seconds. They can spec into a KD which lasts 1.5 seconds, but almost completely fills your resolve bar. The LONGEST one operative could possibly keep you stunned while simultaneously dealing damage is 5.5 seconds. This isn't enough time for their sub-par damage to bring down geared opponents. You also have a CC breaker. Use it. Multiple operatives could keep you stunned for 8 seconds, but other classes can do the same (or better). Multiplets of others classes can also bring you down faster.

Making the game F2P means very little in terms of acquiring and retaining players if you continue to absolutely ignore the issues which caused so many to unsubscribe in the first place. You are trying to treat the symptom, not the problem.

Did you read that guys? He played a rogue in WoW for three years! That means he is actually a PvP operative expert despite only having a level 20 operative. I beat Splinter Cell, so I can relate. Look, you obviously came here with an opinion which you have no intentions of changing. You have no real interest in finding out what has destroyed this class. It appears that your only real purpose here is to tell everyone playing the class that they should be satisfied with how the class performs because YOU leveled one to 20 and found some cherry-picked Youtube videos where operatives are fighting ungeared players. Nobody here is buying what you are selling. Just leave already.

Fixed. Stealth does not guarantee first hit because of stealth detection, which is extremely high in this game.

Shhhhh! The level 20 Lethality operative says we are balanced, so we must be. No need for evidence when you have 12 hours of experience with the class.

Absolutely ridiculous. The devs have their heads up their asses. "Marauder and PT are overpowered - better nerf Operative." - Georg