+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Maplestory (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=15)
+--- Forum: Training Center (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+---- Forum: Magician (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=39)
+---- Thread: Post ascension Bishop build (/showthread.php?tid=47320)
Post ascension Bishop build - Kalemora - 2011-09-27
This thread is amusing.
The idea of an HSless Bishop is even more amusing.
The idea that anyone would take a HSless Bishop is just flat out hilarious.
Post ascension Bishop build - Atuan - 2011-09-27
Post ascension Bishop build - Exidous - 2011-09-27
Recap for late joiners:
Bishops can be built for damage rather than support. Given a boss run with limited capacity, runners should be chosen on the basis of what they can contribute to the run. If a bishop hasn't added SP to their support skills yet, but does more damage than other attackers you are considering, I would argue that you should bring them in addition to whatever support characters you deem necessary, and exclude the weaker attacker rather than the attacking bishop.
In order to illustrate this point I made up an extreme example of a LHC party and a bishop that actually skipped HS, in order to show that even with this extreme example, the character could still be preferable to alternatives. People found it helpful to rage and reveal their own arbitrary and often batshit crazy biases about who should get in their party rather than address my point. My original point being it makes at least as much sense to build a bishop solely to attack as it does to make any class that is solely good for attacking that is not the most powerful according to the dps charts. Sure, it's suboptimal to make such a class if damage is your only goal. Maybe it's even silly. But it's a silly game where all the characters are BMs (or whoever is top of the dps charts now) or all the bishops are just HS mules. People want to build characters in different ways, and thanks to funding they can be competitive in damage with others in spite of class imbalances.
If you want to exclude them you can, but you are the one sacrificing the speed or efficiency of your boss run or exp gain if you exclude them purely on the basis of skill build or class rather than what they can do for you. This goes for any class, but is especially poignant regarding attacking bishops.
Post ascension Bishop build - ShinkuDragon - 2011-09-27
how about this, i grab the HS bishop, and whoever else comes in the order they came in, tell them all to afk on the rope (minus the HS bishop) and i go solo the whole darn map.
Post ascension Bishop build - Eliseo - 2011-09-27
ShinkuDragon Wrote:how about this, i grab the HS bishop, and whoever else comes in the order they came in, tell them all to afk on the rope (minus the HS bishop) and i go solo the whole darn map.
Why don't you become a president?
Post ascension Bishop build - modular - 2011-09-28
why isnt this thread dead yet
Post ascension Bishop build - KhainiWest - 2011-09-28
Exidous Wrote:Recap for late joiners:
Bishops can be built for damage rather than support. Given a boss run with limited capacity, runners should be chosen on the basis of what they can contribute to the run. If a bishop hasn't added SP to their support skills yet, but does more damage than other attackers you are considering, I would argue that you should bring them in addition to whatever support characters you deem necessary, and exclude the weaker attacker rather than the attacking bishop.
For your hypothetical situation to work you have to have a bishop already in the run. The problem is you wouldn't choose a second bishop if theres another class available, why? Because although the bishop is stronger, it's party skills are already there. I would also like you to actually do the math to reflect how much % int a bishop would need to outdamage a buccaneer, and every other party member that gains benefits from SI. In case you didn't know that could include a 10-20% damage output, per character. I just don't get the mindset of attacking bishops, I honestly feel like they're dumb. You're putting all you resources to put a class, not even close to be an attacker by a bossing standard, to put them on par with one of the weaker attackers. No one wants a bishop because he can do an extra 500k on angel ray, some players have attacks that hit multiple 500k's at once.
Exidous Wrote:In order to illustrate this point I made up an extreme example of a LHC party and a bishop that actually skipped HS, in order to show that even with this extreme example, the character could still be preferable to alternatives. People found it helpful to rage and reveal their own arbitrary and often batshit crazy biases about who should get in their party rather than address my point. My original point being it makes at least as much sense to build a bishop solely to attack as it does to make any class that is solely good for attacking that is not the most powerful according to the dps charts. Sure, it's suboptimal to make such a class if damage is your only goal. Maybe it's even silly. But it's a silly game where all the characters are BMs (or whoever is top of the dps charts now) or all the bishops are just HS mules. People want to build characters in different ways, and thanks to funding they can be competitive in damage with others in spite of class imbalances.
If you want to exclude them you can, but you are the one sacrificing the speed or efficiency of your boss run or exp gain if you exclude them purely on the basis of skill build or class rather than what they can do for you. This goes for any class, but is especially poignant regarding attacking bishops.
Unless you can provide proof that an attacking bishop will shave more time off a boss than your counterparts, not training, a boss, then your argument is futile. Stop trying to justify a class that wasn't designed to be attackers, they were designed for support. I would also like you to provide proof that your bishops attack range would shave off enough time off a boss or a training monster, to offset the effects of hs. Hint: it doesn't.
Post ascension Bishop build - Blades4hire - 2011-09-28
Anyway, nobodies going to waste their time comparing the bucc and the the bishop's damage.
Bishop has no hs=bishop out, bucc in.
If you want to make an attacking Mage, go pump that 200% int into a f/p and make an hs mule.
Post ascension Bishop build - Exidous - 2011-09-28
KhainiWest Wrote:For your hypothetical situation to work you have to have a bishop already in the run.If you're talking about the LHC hypothetical: it's only natural everyone wants HS for any party. Although the same point stands in an example where the support bishop isn't there, and the attacking bishop is sixth strongest instead of fifth (and there's no beneficial party buff that number seven offers that would offset the damage difference). People start parties with what they have available. In my server during 1x many LHC parties don't have hs these days.
If you're talking about a boss, I said "support you deem necessary" for a reason: sometimes people don't even care about a support bishop. For the longest time they weren't needed or wanted at PB, for example. Support is merely a role bishops can play, not one they inherently must. The hypothetical is about comparing an attacking bishop with other attackers.
Quote:The problem is you wouldn't choose a second bishop if theres another class available, why? Because although the bishop is stronger, it's party skills are already there.It makes zero sense to include someone weaker whose party skill is worthless. Killing the mobs slower than you otherwise could is slower exp. I don't think you're a good leader if you make the party have slower exp for illogical reasons.
Quote:I would also like you to actually do the math to reflect how much % int a bishop would need to outdamage a buccaneer, and every other party member that gains benefits from SI. In case you didn't know that could include a 10-20% damage output, per character.That was the point of the LHC hypothetical: SI did nothing for that party. Support bishop is on the rope, BM/hurricane is fast enough with just booster, bam probably uses ele staff, NL is at speed cap, and so forth. Is it so insane to consider the needs and makeup of the party before making a decision?
Quote:I just don't get the mindset of attacking bishops, I honestly feel like they're dumb. You're putting all you resources to put a class, not even close to be an attacker by a bossing standard, to put them on par with one of the weaker attackers.I don't understand the mindset of people who make a class that's only useful for making numbers appear on the screen, personally. People make permabeginners - the rest of us certainly don't have to get it.
Besides, if you play anything besides a BM as of tomorrow, it will be less good than a BM at damage. You should take whatever funding and make a BM, or else you're just spending resources to put yourself on par with BMs.
See how silly that sounds?
I'm arguing for a pragmatic party and bossing policy that actually utilizes resources instead of arbitrary (and damaging!) class/build discrimination.
Quote:No one wants a bishop because he can do an extra 500k on angel ray, some players have attacks that hit multiple 500k's at once.By all means, if the higher damage attacker is available take them instead. Which is the same argument that supports bringing the attacking bishop instead of the bucc.
Quote:Unless you can provide proof that an attacking bishop will shave more time off a boss than your counterparts, not training, a boss, then your argument is futile.You actually doubt that its possible? Bishop's dps isn't 1/8 of the next weakest class (which may well be bucc right now, I don't know). It's entirely possible to get a damage range 8 times higher than the the weakest fourth jobber. If you insist...
I don't know what your dps list of choice is so I'll just give you a formula to figure out how much extra range the bishop needs to equal the bucc's dps. Link me if you want numbers, but I'll think you're pretty obnoxious if you actually make me do such transparent math for you to acknowledge my point.
assume bishop % damage per second is X (from the chart)
assume bucc % damage per second is Y (from the chart)
assume bishop's damage range (lets go with average) is A
assume bucc's damage range (average) is B
A*X = B*Y
plug and chug
Quote:Stop trying to justify a class that wasn't designed to be attackers, they were designed for support.Nexon's "design" consists of the equivalent of random chance, there's no point in respecting its intent. I'm going to do what I enjoy and so will everyone else who doesn't play whatever class happens to top the dps list at any given time. All I had to do was show that bishops can attack, not that they're best at it, they just have to be better than the next worst option in any scenario I can imagine. You really want to argue against that?
Back in the day when equips could only vary by a smaller range of stats, it was conceivable that bishop dps couldn't catch up to certain classes with normal funding. But in the age of potential, all bets are definitely off.
Quote:I would also like you to provide proof that your bishops attack range would shave off enough time off a boss or a training monster, to offset the effects of hs. Hint: it doesn't.What's that got to do with it? Anyone who actually committed to making a hsless bishop probably already has a hs mule or access to friends with hs. Address my points, don't harangue a theoretical character: the fate of mr crazy old McHslessbishop is completely irrelevant to this argument. He exists only to illustrate a point, I couldn't care how optimal his training was before hypothetical day any more than I care how optimally a permabeginner trains now.
Post ascension Bishop build - KhainiWest - 2011-09-28
Exidous Wrote:If you're talking about the LHC hypothetical: it's only natural everyone wants HS for any party. Although the same point stands in an example where the support bishop isn't there, and the attacking bishop is sixth strongest instead of fifth (and there's no beneficial party buff that number seven offers that would offset the damage difference). People start parties with what they have available. In my server during 1x many LHC parties don't have hs these days.
So you admit it's an inferior party and that bishops who are forced to attack are a last resort. Okay.
Exidous Wrote:If you're talking about a boss, I said "support you deem necessary" for a reason: sometimes people don't even care about a support bishop. For the longest time they weren't needed or wanted at PB, for example. Support is merely a role bishops can play, not one they inherently must. The hypothetical is about comparing an attacking bishop with other attackers.
Considering a bishops skill tree is greatly influenced by party skills it be pretty stupid to do anything else. Also for the PB method, the detail you forgot to mention was that we needed attackers, and stopped wasting slots on bishops. But wait, can you explain to me why no attacking bishops showed up? Oh no reason besides they suck in that department.
Exidous Wrote:It makes zero sense to include someone weaker whose party skill is worthless. Killing the mobs slower than you otherwise could is slower exp. I don't think you're a good leader if you make the party have slower exp for illogical reasons.
You could barely scoff off a hypothetical situation this would apply to, which would need the following ingrediants:
1) A dead server so that you take what you can get
2) Everyone in the party essentially doesn't need SI which would mean they all have fast 5 weapons. Good luck with that.
Exidous Wrote:That was the point of the LHC hypothetical: SI did nothing for that party. Support bishop is on the rope, BM/hurricane is fast enough with just booster, bam probably uses ele staff, NL is at speed cap, and so forth. Is it so insane to consider the needs and makeup of the party before making a decision?
Barrel is still more useful than attacking bishop for bosses.
Exidous Wrote:I don't understand the mindset of people who make a class that's only useful for making numbers appear on the screen, personally. People make permabeginners - the rest of us certainly don't have to get it.
No you don't get it, I completely understand. See they make a class with big numbers and fun, opinionated gameplay, because they like efficiency with some fun on the side. Perma have no interest in training/bosses, they like the social aspect. Since perma are seen as unicorns, as not a lot of people would play a game solely on the social aspect, they get the attention they want. It's quick access to becoming a maple celebrity besides spamming witty smega's.
Exidous Wrote:Besides, if you play anything besides a BM as of tomorrow, it will be less good than a BM at damage. You should take whatever funding and make a BM, or else you're just spending resources to put yourself on par with BMs.
There are a lot of influencing factors that let you choose a class, a bishop's influences do not include "1v1 DPS". Because most of their skills are party skills sought after, you should consider yourself active with parties, assisting, not attacking. I made a dark knight because I understood how the class functioned, they are a decent attack, which makes my DPS beneficial, and I have party skills that help the players to a degree that it was sought after, not so much anymore. You can't expect to be ridiculed for trying to convince players that a class that needs 8x more resources than a buccaneer should be acceptable as an attacker.
Exidous Wrote:I'm arguing for a pragmatic party and bossing policy that actually utilizes resources instead of arbitrary (and damaging!) class/build discrimination.
It's efficiency princess. You build off your classes strengths, which would be the support role. Not a mule role, but your perogative should be support. If you don't like it, make another class because if you keep up with this royalty attitude, people aren't going to take you to boss runs.
Exidous Wrote:By all means, if the higher damage attacker is available take them instead. Which is the same argument that supports bringing the attacking bishop instead of the bucc.
Barrel could give the entire party invulnerability as it can tank aggro's. A bucc's strengths isn't just dps and SI.
You actually doubt that its possible? Bishop's dps isn't 1/8 of the next weakest class (which may well be bucc right now, I don't know). It's entirely possible to get a damage range 8 times higher than the the weakest fourth jobber. If you insist...
Exidous Wrote:I don't know what your dps list of choice is so I'll just give you a formula to figure out how much extra range the bishop needs to equal the bucc's dps. Link me if you want numbers, but I'll think you're pretty obnoxious if you actually make me do such transparent math for you to acknowledge my point.
assume bishop % damage per second is X (from the chart)
assume bucc % damage per second is Y (from the chart)
assume bishop's damage range (lets go with average) is A
assume bucc's damage range (average) is B
A*X = B*Y
plug and chug
Damage charts even by today's standards are useless. But I'll entertain the idea that a corsair with 0% potential possibly could be outdamaged by a bishop with 200%+, is it realistic? No. Should you invest more funds into a class to just be considered as an attacker, rather than, investing those same amount of funds into a class that would benefit more off of it? Probably not.
Exidous Wrote:Nexon's "design" consists of the equivalent of random chance, there's no point in respecting its intent. I'm going to do what I enjoy and so will everyone else who doesn't play whatever class happens to top the dps list at any given time. All I had to do was show that bishops can attack, not that they're best at it, they just have to be better than the next worst option in any scenario I can imagine. You really want to argue against that?
The party skills that you are selfishly avoiding do not offset the damage increase that the bishop may have, let alone compare to the other attacking classes and their benefits besides damage. Maybe you'll care to explain, by your logic, why bucc's were taken rather than attack bishops? Since it's all about numbers and not other strengths the class may offer.
exidous Wrote:Back in the day when equips could only vary by a smaller range of stats, it was conceivable that bishop dps couldn't catch up to certain classes with normal funding. But in the age of potential, all bets are definitely off.
Doesn't that weaken your arguement further as most classes use top and bottom not overall?
Exidous Wrote:What's that got to do with it? Anyone who actually committed to making a hsless bishop probably already has a hs mule or access to friends with hs. Address my points, don't harangue a theoretical character: the fate of mr crazy old McHslessbishop is completely irrelevant to this argument. He exists only to illustrate a point, I couldn't care how optimal his training was before hypothetical day any more than I care how optimally a permabeginner trains now.
So your argument is to make a new character to offset the uselessness that a bishop that focus' on attack is? Wonderful.
Post ascension Bishop build - Nepi - 2011-09-28
HS was a complete garbage skill for training outside big parties before Ascension, I can easily understand if someone left it unmaxed just for laughs/personal pride/etc. I didn't max it until 10x on mine, even Dispel was much more useful and allowed for higher %/h if you knew its advantages. A HSless Bishop could have easily chosen to just train at Leafre and ToT instead of LHC and gain much, much faster exp than leeching on a rope.
They are as great mobbers as the other magicians if you know what you're doing, but it requires a lot more character control than other classes which is why most give up and just leech. >.< With AR they now have three mobbing skills you're supposed to use right depending on the situation, being dependant on the close ranged Tele Mastery more than any other Magician class, along with having to keep up with all the buffs and party skills for yourself and everyone (when you're not soloing) makes Bishops have probably the largest gap between a poor and a skilled player damage wise. =/ I can understand why most Bishops just become lol buff support mules which just keeps building the stereotype of them being weak.
Post ascension Bishop build - Veneni - 2011-09-28
Forget about dps, for training the exp-per-sec is important. The hs of the bishop basically means +50% exp-per-sec. The hsless bishop would have to do dps of the whole party *50% to provide the same exp-per-sec increase. So basically he has to be as strong as 2.5 attackers assuming the hsbishop does nothing. Assuming average %stat is 50% in the party, the bishop would need the strength of 150%*2.5 = 375%, so he would need 275% int, which is impossible. Hs bishop > hsless bishop. QED
Anyways ontopic, I'm going to do this build:
1 Gen, 1 res, 1 bb
Max AR
lv. 7 or so bahamut
Max Adv. Bless
max ressurect
Max Buff Mastery
lv. 20 MW
max Arcane Aim or infinity (I can't decide which one is better)
max infinity or Arcane Aim
Max Bahamut (102 SP out of 108 spent at this point)
max genesis
max bb
I like both supporting and attacking actively, so I'm doing a mix of both type skills.
Post ascension Bishop build - donovan - 2011-09-28
Nepi Wrote:HS was a complete garbage skill for training outside big parties before Ascension, I can easily understand if someone left it unmaxed just for laughs/personal pride/etc. I didn't max it until 10x on mine, even Dispel was much more useful and allowed for higher %/h if you knew its advantages. A HSless Bishop could have easily chosen to just train at Leafre and ToT instead of LHC and gain much, much faster exp than leeching on a rope.
They are as great mobbers as the other magicians if you know what you're doing, but it requires a lot more character control than other classes which is why most give up and just leech. >.< With AR they now have three mobbing skills you're supposed to use right depending on the situation, being dependant on the close ranged Tele Mastery more than any other Magician class, along with having to keep up with all the buffs and party skills for yourself and everyone (when you're not soloing) makes Bishops have probably the largest gap between a poor and a skilled player damage wise. =/ I can understand why most Bishops just become lol buff support mules which just keeps building the stereotype of them being weak.
Bishops aren't being stereotyped, they fall into a certain category among Magicians and Maple Classes. You can choose to refute these realities and funnel your efforts and money into prove these truth otherwise, but the reality is that they are still true.
These Truths would be:
-Bishops are a Support Class
-Nexon did not design Clerics/Priest/Bishops to be an attacking class.
Proofs would be from the initial pitiful damage of Clerics and Priest, continued low attacking premise after various skill updates, or that by equally funding a "real" attacker and a Bishop, the Bishop would fall grossly short of the attacker. Instead of equal, the best of all equips possible, I suppose, would be a better use of words, because magic and weapon attack, INT and STR, LUK and DEX, all differ in values.
You could also cite disadvantages towards solo-Bishops in the game, lack of Elemental Weapons, lack of trainable Holy-weak monsters, and so on, but you get the point.
Post ascension Bishop build - Exidous - 2011-09-28
So you went line by line without a point, great. Here's my argument again. Assess an attacking bishop as an attacker. When building a party, they don't compete with HS for a slot, they compete with the weakest attacker, same as when building a party considering any other attacking class, taking into account everything the character has to offer. If you think its crazy to make an hsless bishop, that's certainly your business, I've never done it. But I think its a lot more than crazy to jump down my throat over a hypothetical I made to prove a point that you find expedient to ignore.
To review:
You admit a bishop can exceed the attacking power of other classes (after unnecessary arm twisting)
I imagined a scenario where you can choose a bishop as an attacker for your party, or you can choose a weaker character of another class (with no other useful skills). If you choose the bishop, you are maximizing your party's exp. If you choose the other class, you are irrationally discriminating against the bishop, and slowing down exp for your whole party. If you want to be irrational you can, but it doesn't make me any less right
KhainiWest Wrote:It's efficiency princess. You build off your classes strengths, which would be the support role. Not a mule role, but your perogative should be support. If you don't like it, make another class because if you keep up with this royalty attitude, people aren't going to take you to boss runs.The only princess here is the one barking off commands about how other people should make their characters, I want everyone to be treated fairly, regardless of the path they took to create the character before ending up at the base of your ivory tower of irrationality asking for a party.
Further down your line of reasoning: it is strictly inefficent for you to play a DK. You'd do more damage as a BM. You have no useful party buff anymore (in fact its a negative since it replaces self hb). Delete your character and cry, since you are no longer being efficient, and therefore the entire game is now pointless for you (aparently).
Note: I think that line of reasoning is dumb and its why I've aligned the opposing side of the argument with it. If a particular view of optimization is not the only concern in making characters, we can have fun. It's okay to optimize when you're wasting other people's time at a boss run or party play area. But to demand a particular build out of every class and character - and then to discriminate against dissenters especially when it's to your own detriment - is really, really stupid.
Quote:There are a lot of influencing factors that let you choose a class, a bishop's influences do not include "1v1 DPS".How far down the dps list do we go before 1v1 dps is no longer allowed to be an influencing factor? Because if you stop right before bishop, you're racist. Merely having another job we can do doesn't mean we can't do others. Bishops are a versatile class like that.
Quote:The party skills that you are selfishly avoiding do not offset the damage increase that the bishop may haveThat's your opinion. They're two completely different things, and we have no objective metric to compare them. How much 1v1 damage is max bless worth? Dispel is worth how much party DPS?
Hey, here's an idea, when YOU make a bishop you can make that decision for yourself.
Quote:Maybe you'll care to explain, by your logic, why bucc's were taken rather than attack bishops? Since it's all about numbers and not other strengths the class may offer.In the LHC hypothetical, the bucc can't be taken logically. The point of the hypothetical was to illustrate the irrationality of discriminating against attacking bishops. It's not all about numbers, it's about everything a character has to offer - and one of those things that bishops can offer is damage. I created a hypothetical, of which there are many, where the attacking bishop was an option worth taking. Point proved.
I'm starting to think this is really a bitter jealousy thing. Most other classes aren't good for anything besides attacking, and constantly have to deal with silly damage tier measures that put a ranking on everything they're good for. Now I come in and show categorically that bishops can attack - and with a funding advantage, better than other classes - and some people just cant handle it. They snap, lose all narrative function, and start responding line by line arguing about the viability of hypothetical man in the real world and random scenarios I couldn't care less about.
You know what the real world concern here is? When a bishop with 100% int shows up, outdamages most of the 5-person LHC party, and is still not allowed in because "they already have hs". When another powerful bishop goes bossing and - if they even get to go - is excluded from the main party in favor of doubling up a weak incarnation of a class already in the party because "bishops aren't attackers" - even though the run would've been quicker with the attacking bishop in the main party getting the right buffs.
It's because of irrational preconceptions. It's because of spoiled brats like you who think a class gets a slot by merit of the class it is, rather than what it can do for the party or run.
Now unless you have something that's not "I wouldn't do that," "thats dumb," or "I have deep-seated confidence issues regarding my obsolete class," kindly refrain from wasting my time again.
Post ascension Bishop build - donovan - 2011-09-28
The problem is that you were implying this super funded Bishop would be unintelligent enough not to add HS, for some scattered sense of pride.
Post ascension Bishop build - Exidous - 2011-09-28
Obviously talking about not having HS sets off some kind of primal, violent impulse in everyone else in the thread. Like I said, it was an extreme example I made up hypothetically to prove a point. I'm not arguing that a hsless bishop is somehow efficient to build now, merely that circumstances can arise where a build even that extreme is preferable to bring in your party.
Post ascension Bishop build - KhainiWest - 2011-09-28
Exidous Wrote:So you went line by line without a point, great. Here's my argument again. Assess an attacking bishop as an attacker. When building a party, they don't compete with HS for a slot, they compete with the weakest attacker, same as when building a party considering any other attacking class, taking into account everything the character has to offer. If you think its crazy to make an hsless bishop, that's certainly your business, I've never done it. But I think its a lot more than crazy to jump down my throat over a hypothetical I made to prove a point that you find expedient to ignore.
No sir there were plenty of points, otherwise you wouldn't be able to provide an argument. You're just not efficient enough to get the point it seems.
Point:
Power of an attacking bishop does not offset the experience increase from hs. That is fact. Assuming that you would waste two party slots for two bishop's, your only argument is that it possibly could do more damage than a buccaneer. Assuming it would, it still would not gurrantee each party member having a fast 5 weapon, and even if that were gurranteed, a buccaneer would still be chosen because two bishop's is redudent and worthless. The HS bishop can attack just as well as the pro-attack can.
Exidous Wrote:To review:
You admit a bishop can exceed the attacking power of other classes (after unnecessary arm twisting)
I imagined a scenario where you can choose a bishop as an attacker for your party, or you can choose a weaker character of another class (with no other useful skills).
How realistic is that? Any character can be stronger than any other character, however with the odd's against you, and the circumstances you provided extrememly specific. A bishop would nearly require 8x the resources in comparison to a bucc to match DPS, possible, but not realist, and frankly a waste of resources to begin with because you're spending an atrocioius amount of money to not be the bottom of the DPS chart. Not to mention other party skills, or rush juggling that may or not be neccessary.
Essentially you're playing the what if game to justify bishops have other options. But if that were the case why is there only one very hypothetical situation vs the hundreds I could come up off the top of my head. You aren't winning an argument by providing a possibility, because I can tell you a million reasons why that in fact is
A) Illogical
b) Unlikely
Exidous Wrote:If you choose the bishop, you are maximizing your party's exp. If you choose the other class, you are irrationally discriminating against the bishop, and slowing down exp for your whole party. If you want to be irrational you can, but it doesn't make me any less right
For a boss no, a buccaneer's barrel would be prefered over your minimum dps advantage, assuming your funded atrociously more. For training, possibly, but the ability to control mob's may argue otherwise, I don't play either classes so I can't give a full opinion on that. But as a drk, I know mob control is much more important than simply damage.
Exidous Wrote:The only princess here is the one barking off commands about how other people should make their characters, I want everyone to be treated fairly, regardless of the path they took to create the character before ending up at the base of your ivory tower of irrationality asking for a party.
Telling people how to play? Are you upset because I'm essentially calling your class, who's entire skill tree argues against you, an insufficient dpser therefore a support class? Sorry that isn't telling you anything but the obvious. You can remain ignorant but I assure you, no one is going to take your character because of it's damage, like no one would take that 180 bishop on account of a weak 500% damage. Perhaps you should refer to joetangs chart posted yesterday to see your actual DPS vs a buccaneers, you'll look way less stupid.
Exidous Wrote:Further down your line of reasoning: it is strictly inefficent for you to play a DK. You'd do more damage as a BM. You have no useful party buff anymore (in fact its a negative since it replaces self hb). Delete your character and cry, since you are no longer being efficient, and therefore the entire game is now pointless for you (aparently).
Sorry but that logic fails because you only support your stance with an asusmption and DPS. A drk can ignore 100% defence, a drk can provide 20% extra HP when necessary, a drk also can handle any circumstance, mob to 1v1, the jack of all trades if you will.
As a bishop, your damage is one of the weakest of the 3 tiers, none of your skills being very offensive, but merely party support defensive. I'm sorry you wasted your time creating a class not understanding it's obvious purpose, but you should possibly educate yourself of your own class, or provide math to justify it.
Exidous Wrote:Note: I think that line of reasoning is dumb and its why I've aligned the opposing side of the argument with it. If a particular view of optimization is not the only concern in making characters, we can have fun. It's okay to optimize when you're wasting other people's time at a boss run or party play area. But to demand a particular build out of every class and character - and then to discriminate against dissenters especially when it's to your own detriment - is really, really stupid.
You know whats even more stupid? Ignoring facts of efficiency because you want to be different. You're essentially shooting yourself in the foot and demanding players accept that you don't have party skills that you're sought out for. No damage increase as a bishop, as a bishop no longer can 1-2 hit everything, like everyother class, will make the huge increase of exp from HS. Deal with it.
Exidous Wrote:How far down the dps list do we go before 1v1 dps is no longer allowed to be an influencing factor? Because if you stop right before bishop, you're racist. Merely having another job we can do doesn't mean we can't do others. Bishops are a versatile class like that.
1854% on a 0% defence monster. Do you know how bad that is? Go look up the other classes such as bucc lmfao.
Exidous Wrote:That's your opinion. They're two completely different things, and we have no objective metric to compare them. How much 1v1 damage is max bless worth? Dispel is worth how much party DPS?
Dispel is worthless for dark knights, we sit on top of the boss to avoid curses such as those, excluding seduce, which dispel doesn't help with.
Exidous Wrote:Hey, here's an idea, when YOU make a bishop you can make that decision for yourself.
I have a bishop, although its pre-bb, but I don't see some massive damage increase equilavent to the other classes to justify my party specific needs.
Exidous Wrote:In the LHC hypothetical, the bucc can't be taken logically. The point of the hypothetical was to illustrate the irrationality of discriminating against attacking bishops. It's not all about numbers, it's about everything a character has to offer - and one of those things that bishops can offer is damage. I created a hypothetical, of which there are many, where the attacking bishop was an option worth taking. Point proved.
Your situation being another class that provides no party skills, is specifically weaker, even though there is quite a gap in funding needed. It's like a bucc starts at ground level, while a bishop starts at sea level.
Exidous Wrote:I'm starting to think this is really a bitter jealousy thing. Most other classes aren't good for anything besides attacking, and constantly have to deal with silly damage tier measures that put a ranking on everything they're good for. Now I come in and show categorically that bishops can attack - and with a funding advantage, better than other classes - and some people just cant handle it. They snap, lose all narrative function, and start responding line by line arguing about the viability of hypothetical man in the real world and random scenarios I couldn't care less about.
No I think you're just upset because you know in the real world no circumstances exist. You could not, would not ever find a bishop who could outdamage me. You used 500k as a place marker for "godly" bishop, and guess what. That's total sh`it. I did damage caps at a faster MS than lolangelray.
Exidous Wrote:You know what the real world concern here is? When a bishop with 100% int shows up, outdamages most of the 5-person LHC party, and is still not allowed in because "they already have hs". When another powerful bishop goes bossing and - if they even get to go - is excluded from the main party in favor of doubling up a weak incarnation of a class already in the party because "bishops aren't attackers" - even though the run would've been quicker with the attacking bishop in the main party getting the right buffs.
I mean really, your perception of "godly" is such a laugh, 100% int?! HAHAHAHA. You're so amazed by these big numbers you don't see the bigger picture, such as speed, defense, and other advantages other skills give. You want to compare a dark knight to a bishop? Don't make me laugh. Were talking about a class who in an instant go from one of the heaviest hitters on the highest defence monsters, to dark impale, that heals/increases our critical, to increasing our base hp at all times at 60%.
Exidous Wrote:It's because of irrational preconceptions. It's because of spoiled brats like you who think a class gets a slot by merit of the class it is, rather than what it can do for the party or run.
No kid its because people can do math. See you're trying to give bishops bragging rights with 500k damage. That ain't sh`it in the real goddam world. It shows how naive you are, how easily influenced you are by these crappy constructed dps charts to actually fool yourself into believing that you're more than your skill tree. Wanna talk about how useful your class is? You were cut off pink bean, while bucc's were sought after, because your party skills weren't helpful enough. We sacrificed too much DPS, becuase you know what, bishops dps sucks. And guess who discovered that? KMS? Oh you know, the ones who are most known for their teamwork?
Exidous Wrote:Now unless you have something that's not "I wouldn't do that," "thats dumb," or "I have deep-seated confidence issues regarding my obsolete class," kindly refrain from wasting my time again.
Why you wasted enough time trying to justify you making a bishop for damage wasn't a waste of time.
Hint it was.
Post ascension Bishop build - ScottyxD - 2011-09-28
Exidous Wrote:Obviously talking about not having HS sets off some kind of primal, violent impulse in everyone else in the thread. Like I said, it was an extreme example I made up hypothetically to prove a point. I'm not arguing that a hsless bishop is somehow efficient to build now, merely that circumstances can arise where a build even that extreme is preferable to bring in your party.You just realized that? I don't know if you remember the famous "holy arrow thread" but threads like these it's best to just keep it to yourself to prevent any escalation.
KhainiWest & Exidous.. you both need to go "woosah" off this thread..
Post ascension Bishop build - Zikoshi - 2011-09-28
happylight Wrote:Well yeah I'm gonna be buffing with whatever buff skills I have. But when I have to make a decision about which skills to get first I'd get the one that increase my DPS the most just like everyone else. If that skill happens to be a party buff skill then great. If not then too bad.
Of course I'm gonna be healing before you die at empress. But if you're gonna let yourself die to save some pots at zak... lol you wouldn't believe the amount of retards out there that believe I should be healing instead of attacking even though my DPS is higher than theirs.
Anyways kinda gone off topic and became a rant. =p
Which skills you get depends on which type of bishop you wish to play. Either one is fine.
The sad truth about Bishops? They don't make a lot of experience on their own. They are a support class, not DPS, meaning they're mostly expected to join parties to make up for their inability to deal damage and solo-train.
Unfortunately, most people are inclined to be selfish and worry about their own experience gains, and leave their party members at wayside. That is against my newest Raison d'être though, meaning I worry more about joining diversified paradigms of parties, equipping my party members with buffs which allow them to kill enemies, mobs, and bosses faster, which in turn, grants everyone more experience. The selfish route leaves everyone hanging, including yourself.
Any Bishop above lv. 140 shouldn't have to worry much about which skill they plan on maxing first. If they're already ascertained a build previous to Ascension, they'll be completely capable of making slight implications and modifications to it post Ascension. I personally am dumping all of my points into Advanced Blessing, Holy Magic Shell, and putting one more point into Angel Ray to top it off. Big Bang seems completely irrelevant when stacked against the newest Angel Ray, so I'm prepared to salvage the ten skill points placed in it at my 12x's.
Also, someone posted a confusing statement in the beginning of this thread about party play areas being removed by Nexon. Shedding some clarity on the topic, I'll note that Nexon isn't removing them, mainly because there was a lot of controversy sparked between them and American/Canadian players. Thus, when you log on post Ascension, intend to see Lion Heart Castle just where you left it. As for the hackers, modifying the spawns within the maps, they're probably still going to be there as well, until Nexon finds a way to patch that little err in Wild Hunter skills.
Edit: @happylight, there's one thing I will agree on with you though, that a lot of people expect Bishops to spam heal, no matter what, only so that the receiving party member can reserve some of their potions. That's unacceptable, considering they're taking away from the Bishop actually being able to attack periodically. I keep my party members alive and away from death, but never go out of my way to spam heal unless the occasion actually calls for me to.
Post ascension Bishop build - Exidous - 2011-09-28
KhainiWest Wrote:Point:That isn't even a sensible statement. Having 50% faster DPS in a party offsets the HS exp bonus. I already said it's not more efficient training to build a hsless bishop since there aren't skills that give 50% extra damage in the place of HS's SP, but that's not the argument I'm making so why do you keep wasting my time?
Power of an attacking bishop does not offset the experience increase from hs. That is fact.
Quote:Assuming that you would waste two party slots for two bishop's, your only argument is that it possibly could do more damage than a buccaneer. Assuming it would, it still would not gurrantee each party member having a fast 5 weapon, and even if that were gurranteedI guarantee it, it's my goddamn hypothetical. I object to your use of the term "waste". The only waste here is all the bandwidth you've used failing to make an argument. And whenever you play your not-BM, by your "reasoning."
Quote:a buccaneer would still be chosen because two bishop's is redudent and worthless. The HS bishop can attack just as well as the pro-attack can.No, it can't. In the hypothetical the HS bishop is weaker than both the bucc and the HSless bishop. It's not redundant to have a better attacker. Where we differ is in what makes someone a better attacker. I say it's because one has higher dps than the other, and the other brings nothing else to that particular situation. You say its the bucc because it's not a bishop, with no relevant reason whatsoever to back it up. Which I say is illogical discrimination that should stop.
Quote:How realistic is that?It doesn't matter, the circumstances can arise. That's all that's necessary and sufficient for my argument.
Quote:A bishop would nearly require 8x the resources in comparison to a bucc to match DPS, possible, but not realist, and frankly a waste of resources to begin with because you're spending an atrocioius amount of money to not be the bottom of the DPS chart. Not to mention other party skills, or rush juggling that may or not be neccessary.They aren't your resources. Stop telling other people how they should spend them, your grace.
Quote:Essentially you're playing the what if game to justify bishops have other options.
Very good! It only took how many posts for you to grasp that?
Quote:But if that were the case why is there only one very hypothetical situation vs the hundreds I could come up off the top of my head.What would those hundreds mean? That there are circumstances where you should take a stronger attacker than the attacking bishop? Very good! That is also the case! I'm arguing for party optimization not arbitrary class selection.
Quote: You aren't winning an argument by providing a possibility, because I can tell you a million reasons why that in fact isName one
A) Illogical
Quote: b) UnlikelyWho cares? It's unlikely people build bishops for attacking compared to the proportion that build for support, so these "few" situations will find those "few" bishops.
Quote:For a boss noMy hypothetical is LHC, you should really try to stay on topic.
Quote:Telling people how to play?Yes, and how to build their characters. Quite presumptuous of you, isn't it?
Quote:Are you upset because I'm essentially calling your class, who's entire skill tree argues against you, an insufficient dpser therefore a support class?In spite of having all kinds of great party skills, a bishop can be funded to the point where their dps exceeds other classes. Therefore, there are circumstances where they are better attackers than strictly attacking classes (which you conceded). I don't find it helpful to say that bishops are strictly a support class with that in mind. And my argument says treating them as such is illogical, given these bishops-make-preferable-attackers scenarios.
Quote:Perhaps you should refer to joetangs chart posted yesterday to see your actual DPS vs a buccaneers, you'll look way less stupid.You're the one having a fit because you think someone else wants to do something in a game with their own character you disagree with.
But on the subject of his chart, which you want to bring up, after saying that charts aren't reliable and you don't want to talk about them....
it's 19xx% for bishops/sec, what's the bucc number? I'll even take the handicap of no bahamut, no infinity, and no teleport, which are Joe's numbers.
Quote:Sorry but that logic fails because you only support your stance with an asusmption and DPS.Err, do you know what logic is? My hypothetical is as I described, and it's designed so that it can be a straightforward dps comparison.
Quote:A drk can ignore 100% defence, a drk can provide 20% extra HP when necessary, a drk also can handle any circumstance, mob to 1v1, the jack of all trades if you will.The extra HP is generally held to be inferior to having undispellable 40% at real bosses. And BMs still do more damage. But hey I don't want you losing sleep over your ongoing descent into uselessness. Let's stay on the topic of your lack of an argument.
Quote:I'm sorry you wasted your time creating a class not understanding it's obvious purpose, but you should possibly educate yourself of your own class, or provide math to justify it.Math's already provided. It's a four variable equation, I'm sure you can handle it. Oh wait, you already conceded a bishop can be stronger, stop wasting my time.
Quote:You know whats even more stupid? Ignoring facts of efficiency because you want to be different.How is that? And how do you not fall into the exact trap I described about having to be the top dps class or else you're inefficient? Is your DK deleted yet? I might have to stop listening if not, because you're making a very obvious contradiction here.
Quote:You're essentially shooting yourself in the foot and demanding players accept that you don't have party skills that you're sought out for.I'm arguing that players assess an attacking bishop as such. If they can do the job, let them. I am arguing against people solely allowing for bishops for support. As you conceded, a funded bishop can attack better than characters of other classes.
Quote:Your situation being another class that provides no party skills, is specifically weaker, even though there is quite a gap in funding needed. It's like a bucc starts at ground level, while a bishop starts at sea level.Just like you shouldn't be brought unless you already have a funding advantage over a BM. Because you're soooo inefficient.
Quote:No I think you're just upset because you know in the real world no circumstances exist. You could not, would not ever find a bishop who could outdamage me. You used 500k as a place marker for "godly" bishop, and guess what. That's total sh`it. I did damage caps at a faster MS than lolangelray.That wasn't me. And I already described one set of circumstances where the bishop is better than at least one alternate attacker. And you already conceded bishops can be stronger. Tick tock.
Quote:I mean really, your perception of "godly" is such a laugh, 100% int?! HAHAHAHA.I never said godly to describe 100% int, why are you putting it in quotes?
Quote:You want to compare a dark knight to a bishop? Don't make me laugh. Were talking about a class who in an instant go from one of the heaviest hitters on the highest defence monsters, to dark impale, that heals/increases our critical, to increasing our base hp at all times at 60%.I'll flame your class some other time, let's focus on how you don't have an argument, and I'm right.
Quote:Why you wasted enough time trying to justify you making a bishop for damage wasn't a waste of time.Obviously having a reasoned debate with you is a waste of time.
Hint it was.
Here's all I want from you, and the only part of your post that's remotely relevant:
One reason why my providing one hypothetical to prove my point is illogical, of which you said there were hundreds.
ScottyxD Wrote:You just realized that? I don't know if you remember the famous "holy arrow thread" but threads like these it's best to just keep it to yourself to prevent any escalation.I think this is an important issue to argue. Wholesale discrimination against particular skill builds is a bad thing for the whole community.
People said I was crazy for maxing doom back in the day, but it was fantastic in the early days of alien pq. Classes can often do more than what the dominant build would permit, most simply deem the tradeoff not worth it. But that's a far cry from worthless, redundant, and the other words certain individuals are using to describe them in this thread. And it takes community recognition to let irregular skill builds or high funded, low damage classes party and succeed in the game.