Post ascension Bishop build

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.