Feedback talk:User/Insidious420/Shadow Form: Superior complexity

The question is: why make it so complex? It seems more that you just threw as many things on to the positive and negative effects as you could. Are you over-thinking? 000.00.00.00 20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * simple inventions are the best inventions -Talamare-   feedback  20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was toying with keeping the functionality as similar to how it currently is, while not being as totally OP'd, invincible, & maintainable. Altho it's still kinda retarded strong...  i n s i d i o u s 420  21:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If by you mean "kinda retarded strong" you mean "completely worthless and not worth it", then yes. [[Image:User Bathory Spirit to Flesh.jpg|18px]]  Bathory   talk  04:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * while i agree this is far from perfect, how can u say that losing every single status ailment in 1 second (current SF doesn't do this), then being invulnerable to all status ailments for X time (current SF doesn't do this either) is "completely worthless and not worth it"? i n s i d i o u s 420  19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So complex that nobody would use it ever, which is actually a bad thing. Shayne Hawke 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the title was kinda a joke. it's only complex if u have the reading comprehension of a mongoloid monkey. there's a fair # of pros/cons, but it's not hard at all to understand.  it's just not as simple as saying "you're invulnerable" & having a broken skill.  plus, this is in no ways 'final', just a few ideas i had for discussion, but apparently every1's brain exploded.  i n s i d i o u s 420  01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah but say an enemy uses this and you forgot to memorise all its different effects. Then you wouldn't even be able to read its description fast enough to find out what was going on! Widowmaker 19:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I don't really get why everybody is taking a dump on this suggestion. Yes, it's a bit long but I'd rather take this over the current one. Doesn't mean it couldn't be shorter though. Previously Unsigned 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)