Post ascension Bishop build

Point:
Power of an attacking bishop does not offset the experience increase from hs. That is fact.

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?

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

I 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."

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.

How realistic is that?

It doesn't matter, the circumstances can arise. That's all that's necessary and sufficient for my argument.

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.

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?

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.

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

Name one

b) Unlikely

Who 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.

For a boss no

My hypothetical is LHC, you should really try to stay on topic.

Telling people how to play?

Yes, and how to build their characters. Quite presumptuous of you, isn't it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Why you wasted enough time trying to justify you making a bishop for damage wasn't a waste of time.

Hint it was.

Obviously having a reasoned debate with you is a waste of time.

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.

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.