2009-05-21, 12:25 AM
How many bishops use staves 5-8 O_O;; Said bishops would've had to desire to be LUK'd even when it was unpopular to do so (happened, what, 3 years ago?), and stay at it for at least 120 levels, which means they must be at least that high leveled some 1-2 years ago. That's an even more trivial population than the one that collects all 4.
Don't get me wrong, I would personally love to see them release these weapons as drops, but to force their hand into a reduction would directly affect many bishops at this point, which can never be good for a business model. It's synonymous to wondering whether or not adding cyanide to candy is a good idea for Hersheys, because regardless of the effect it'll have, you're going to lose customers.
How many times must it be pointed out that our prices nearly exactly match the ones in MSEA? At most, bishops contribute to a 15-20% increase on prices (now that I have a more accurate number), which simply doesn't explain the high prices. Do you guys really want 6 and 8 wands that badly o_O;;
Again, if they were originally implemented with a reduction, then we would be fine. However, the original release contained NO bonuses or reductions, and only later were bonuses implemented and reductions for respective mage classes. That many bishops likely purchased wands in the interim period likely influenced Nexon's desire to at least be responsible for the mistake it made when first implementing this change.
Don't get me wrong, I would personally love to see them release these weapons as drops, but to force their hand into a reduction would directly affect many bishops at this point, which can never be good for a business model. It's synonymous to wondering whether or not adding cyanide to candy is a good idea for Hersheys, because regardless of the effect it'll have, you're going to lose customers.
godofturtles Wrote:Why should a bishop need to nearly outdamage an arch mage anywhere, even at skeles? You have holy symbol, and the ability to solo and party without needing another bishop/priest/hs mule. This arguement slowly gets turned into a damage comparison only issue, when there's so much more to it and that consistantly gets left out or downplayed. Then when we point out the pros and cons of both classes and we get told that we shouldn't play our class if we complain so much, yet not everyone has the time or will to create a new 4th job character. We thought this release was going to be a great release for ARCH MAGES, yet somehow it became a great release for all magic users in a way that is hurting arch mages who are having trouble getting these weapons due to an inflated demand. These weapons were just a cheap attempt to fix our class instead of simply fixing our skills, that's why they are so important to us and why other classes do not need them.
There are certaintly legitmate arguements from the other side, that include the fact that jms arch mages have it so much harder than us, but honestly, after hearing both sides go at it over and over again, I really think the opposition doesn't have as much of a leg to stand on, since they are arguing a side that would never have even been thought of if the original release of elemental weapons had included the -75%. You've been given the idea that you deserve these as an endgame weapon, nobody ever went around fighting for any luckless weapons above the ones we already have or for holy weapons without getting shot down.
How many times must it be pointed out that our prices nearly exactly match the ones in MSEA? At most, bishops contribute to a 15-20% increase on prices (now that I have a more accurate number), which simply doesn't explain the high prices. Do you guys really want 6 and 8 wands that badly o_O;;
Again, if they were originally implemented with a reduction, then we would be fine. However, the original release contained NO bonuses or reductions, and only later were bonuses implemented and reductions for respective mage classes. That many bishops likely purchased wands in the interim period likely influenced Nexon's desire to at least be responsible for the mistake it made when first implementing this change.