US MVQ Exposed

[Jabz]

Since this thread is getting alot of attention just wanna let everyone know we play daily 59s wargames they are great and we all having a good time...we dont fight about taking consumables cause we play in a war game setting where you can not use them..we are all happy twinks having a blast...no toxicity win or lose...dm me on details or just check out the 50-59 post in the forum...appreciate ur time..hope u guys continue this cause it makes time go quick at work...happy twinking

 

[mfdoom]

that's a really good point Jabz

 

[Katsudon]

-

 

[Mvq]

XD as @tomxoqt doesn't know how to defend himself I'll take the initiative to do it for him.
mvq said his premade consisted out of "2x hunter 2x boomy 1x rogue"
tom said 4 meta specs should be good, obviously pointing towards the double boomy and double hunter. Never implying that rogue was a meta class. So quack asking him if rogue is meta in a matter to discredit him is invalid.
boomy is, has and will probably always be one of the strongest classes thus meta.
mvq didn't specify what spec his hunters were, so naturally he assumed it was double MM, balance of probility.
so now we have a premade of 3 of the strongest classes in the current meta, with a rogue and a surv hunter as the remaining 2.
2 classes/specs that can be highly effective in wsg if played correctly, whether theyre a "meta" class or not is debatable and highly subjective

why argue bout what i said instead of reality?
that's like when someone corrects a previous argument they did, you still beat the dead horse of the previous argument, neglecting the correction, lol

 

[Devm]

why argue bout what i said instead of reality?
that's like when someone corrects a previous argument they did, you still beat the dead horse of the previous argument, neglecting the correction, lol

I did that if you kept reading.
Besides, the point of my first post was to defend tom because quack was trying to debunk toms statement which was correct by the information provided to him. lol

 

[Mvq]

I did that if you kept reading.
Besides, the point of my first post was to defend tom because quack was trying to debunk toms statement which was correct by the information provided to him. lol

You were trying to defend Tom, who was arguing in bad faith by beating a dead horse to win an argument.

 

[Devm]

You were trying to defend Tom, who was arguing in bad faith by beating a dead horse to win an argument.

Your first quote of me was literally only directed to quack trying to debunk toms first correct statement by your lack of information.
That's how the arguement started in the first place.
After it was pointed out, I went on to argue based on the corrrect information.
Lmao imagine obsessing about 1 post

 

[Leek]

 

[Raz]

@Mvq wtf have u done with ur signature

 

[Quack]

@Mvq wtf have u done with ur signature

thats Dread Gladiator Mvqdh, Hero of the Horde to u

 

[Mvq]

@Mvq wtf have u done with ur signature

everyone else have cool sigs, now its my turn i guess

 

[Quack]

everyone else have cool sigs, now its my turn i guess

is this u with 3157 ( three thousand one hundred and fifty seven ) rating in 3s

 

[Mvq]

is this u with 3157 ( three thousand one hundred and fifty seven ) rating in 3s

maybe