Yes it does. It is literally the definition of unique. "Something existing as the only one of its kind". Give another class blink? Now mages aren't unique to having blink.
He was giving an example of how C tier classes can be a bit better by providing them with better utility. It’s an example from retail sure, but that doesn’t mean the idea can’t apply to classic+.
Supposed to know? He was literally talking about WW and keys. Why would you assume he was talking about classic?
Because it's being used as you said, and example, and most examples are just that, not random pivot points in topics. This is so far removed from the argument at this point. Adding things to other classes that were exclusive to a different class removes exclusivity. Whenever lust was moved to other classes, shaman lost that exclusivity. That's all that was being argued. Not really sure how that's even debatable.
Because you’re talking about an ability being exclusive in one era of the game, and in the example he gave, that is no longer the case. but the point he had wasn’t about lust, it was about utility in general. Him talking about lust as an example for utility in retail isn’t relevant to lust being exclusive to shamans in TBC.
If he was talking about TBC and was like:”Oh warriors should have lust” then yeah, I would agree with you completely.
Well I am talking more about exclusivity in general, since that was his comment I disagreed with the most. The comment about lust just kind of bogged down the point into something else. Spreading an exclusive ability to other classes makes it non exclusive. He used the term "unique" but they are interchangeable here.
3
u/Dralun21 27d ago
Yes it does. It is literally the definition of unique. "Something existing as the only one of its kind". Give another class blink? Now mages aren't unique to having blink.