2013-06-23, 06:45 AM
Sephie Wrote:The road to 250 sounds so much worse than the road to 200 because of the numbers but way back then the exp per mob was absolutely awful and everyone was stuck at Skelegons until Himes were released... then everyone was stuck at Himes. I'm willing to bet that FangBlade's grind to 200 was much worse than the grind to 250 will be for us. (Not sure how the math would be so I'm just guessing here.)
I remember Skeles being better than Himes, and also Himes being out before Skeles. Anyway, it used to require 2,121,276,324 EXP, yeah?, to get from 199 to 200. Skelosaurus gave 4,750 EXP, though I don't even remember what it's called anymore, I want to say Peak of the Big Nest, but I'm pretty sure that's the map after, but the map we used to train in wasn't pure spawn, but assuming you were killing in a pure spawn map, you'd have to kill 446,585 Skeles in order to reach 200. With the EXP table we have from 200 to 250, assuming you're killing Golems solo, at level 229, it takes 445,546 Golems to get to 230, and then it just goes up from there, capping at 2,544,119 Golems to get from 249-250 (assuming there's no EXP penalty).
A few additional things:
First, we'd have to compare all levels, through time, assuming training at the best possible mob at whatever level at whatever time, accounting for the fact that probably won't be the most optimal mob, ever, at that level. I didn't pay attention to rankings very much, but I'm assuming FangBlade was way past 120 or whatever by the time we got Leafre, 4th job, and Skeles.
Second, following the first, we have to account for how quickly you could kill the mobs, Skeles had 85k HP, Golems have 89m. I don't know how many hits it took for most people to kill skeles, I was a bishop, so it was pretty much 4, then 3, then 2, then 1 hit ko, to up to 15 of them, like, every second and half. Now I do like, 1m per hit of Demon Cry to Golems with their attack buff up, which hits 6 times, so I take about 15 hits to kill them normally, 7.5 hits with Blue Blood on, half the time, so it averages out to around 11~12 hits to kill, not sure how that compares with everyone else (which makes me think I should maybe pay attention to other people more often).
As for how I feel about rankings, I guess I don't really care either way, in that, I don't really care whether or not they save the old rankings.
I can't really empathize with the people who want the old rankings saved in some manner, at least, not those who want it purely because FangBlade used to be #1, but now he's not. I get that it's nice, yeah, but I've never heard of a ranking system that was so stagnant, one where #1 was eternally guaranteed to the first person who got it. That's just not what rankings are. Rankings are supposed to be dynamic, they change, you don't keep number one forever, people are always given a chance to pass you, and you can defend your title if you so choose.
Saving the old rankings is kinda like, kinda rejecting the legitimacy of the new rankings, you know. "Oh, yeah, that other guy is #1 now, but if you look at the old rankings, the real #1 is that guy". It's not like people forget past versions of rankings, though, like, FangBlade isn't #1 anymore, but it's not like we forgot that, and hell we didn't forget Tiger used to be #1 either, and so on, but on what rankings does it list the top player, team, whatever, and then also have "But, before, so and so was #1" somewhere? They don't have to be there for us to remember, that, at some point, they used to be there.
As for saving the rankings purely so I can go back and see what rank I was, what I accomplished prior to the level cap raise, I guess I can empathize with that more, but still, I can't hang out to that forever. I mean, people, or teams, don't work really hard, then place on some rankings, then stop doing anything forever, yeah? They work and train every year in order to place again, and if they don't continue, then they're just... gone.
Well, I know everyone doesn't feel the same way, but I'm just throwing that out there.