Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You are misreading things and getting frustrated. You are the one who quoted me thinking I said Mages should be included.
|
You said that a mage can replace the DPS of a second enchanter after spending 200 pages arguing that mage DPS sucks. You did not say you thought Mages could be included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If redundancy was that bad, you would pick a Mage over an Enchanter, because they would cover the DPS and also not have redundant spells.
|
The "if" clause specifies that this is a hypothetical. That's crystal clear that you are not saying a mage
should be included, and you are not saying a mage can replace an enchanter. You're talking about a single overlapping aspect of what they each can bring to the group.
"because they would cover the DPS" does not imply that a mage can equal an enchanter, just that the combination of a charm pet and a mage pet hits the sufficiency mark for group DPS.
I understand and accept your argument that there's a sweet spot for group DPS for named camps. I understand and accept that the sweet spot may be less than two charm pets. I understand and accept the argument that if you have two charm pets, mage DPS is overkill and doesn't add much.
But you're still now arguing that mage "covers the DPS" requirement after spending 200 pages arguing mage DPS sucks.