"Woodroward;c-1894362" wrote:
Removing the qualifying adjective doesn't change the meaning to that of the base word. He is the one who said necessary. I responded to him saying really necessary. This isn't the same as necessary. Yeah being able to do it in a million attempts without him means he isn't necessary. But in a more practical sense, he may as well be. It's the same thing with saying basically required.
So misleading here. I responded to his "basically required" with "unnecessary" with the intention of speaking in the same vein. Maybe I should have said "basically unnecessary," but...seriously?
Necessary is the same as required, it's a difference without a distinction, and he was the one who first started referring to Grievous in that manner, whether hedging with a qualifier or not. While it's technically true that I was the first one to use the word "necessary," that was only in response to Woodroward using the synonymous term "required." His post 6/1/19 1:22PM:
"Woodroward;c-1874064" wrote:
The 3 characters that are basically required to win are GG, Asaji, and B2.
My first use of the word necessary was days later on 6/4/19 at 10:02PM, in the form of "unnecessary." It was intended to be in the same vein as he first mentioned, since I was replying to his argument even though I should probably have put a different quote above my response. My point was that Grievous is neither required nor basically required to 7 star Padme. He's wrong on both counts. Or he was trying to weasel his way out with semantics.
Let me make it clear now:
Grievous is not required to 7 star Padme, nor does not having him make it unlikely you'll succeed in doing so. It may be true that I didn't address this directly enough; we may have been distracted with too many other things. It didn't take a million attempts to 7* Padme without Grievous even the last time around. That's a gross exaggeration. And an exaggeration is a form of lying. There's no such thing as truthful hyperbole. It might depend on how good your mods are, though. Next time around, it'll be even less true that Grievous is "basically required" with all the reworks. But Woodroward is busy fighting the last war.
It may take many attempts to 7* Padme without Grievous; it may take several hours. But it doesn't take perfect RNG that takes a million attempts. It's not unlikely. In the following thread alone, seven unique players clearly succeeded in 7 starring Padme without Grievous (several more may have but did not make it clear so I didn't count them): https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/203264/7-padme-without-grievous-use-geonosians-asajj-and-b2
Their usernames are: Arobot19900, usArmyJedi, Neo2551, Worst_Idea_Ever, IgorconQueso, nivbp7, and HermitProfOak. In addition to that, InRevanWeTrust on this thread (page 1) also did it without Grievous. That's at least 8 separate individuals who managed to 7* Padme last time around in just 2 threads, and we should all know that the overwhelming majority of players neither read nor post on forums. 8 separate people on only 2 threads did it without Grievous last time, and next time will be even easier with reworks. Yes, it's soooooo unlikely (sarcasm).
"Woodroward;c-1894362" wrote:
TLDR: Doesn't matter what my words mean to you, matters only what is meant by my words and everything I stated was true and correct in this thread as long as people don't egotistically force their own understandings onto what I have stated.
First, some of the things he has stated as facts on this thread can be neither true nor false because they are either opinions and/or depend on subjective value judgements (e.g., his argument that one should farm everything in the fleet store to 7* before getting a single zeta mat from there). Those aside, many of the things he has stated are objectively false and have been proven as such yet he continues to insist they are true by smoothly brushing aside details and specifics with broad generalizations (and ignoring refutations).
The main one is his insistence that getting 7* Padme without Grievous is unlikely as stated above. Another one was his statement that there is no value disconnect between him and I, which could not be more obviously false - if he disputes this I can write several paragraphs of examples of obvious value disconnects but this post is long enough already.
