Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbrown
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Looks like your conclusion is that in your parse the 1h setup performed above expected, the 2h setup performed about as expected, the 2hb setup beat the 1hb setup by about 2.6% of DPS, and you think this supports the position that 1h is better than 2h?
If your position is that sometimes, when you're lucky with 1h and unlucky with 2h, 1h is almost as good as 2h, then I have no disagreement with you.
|
Last time I checked 4508 damage (assuming 50% hit rate) from the 1h combo beats 4393 damage from the 2h weapon (assuming 50% hit rate) without fist weaving. Quite a few people, including Toxigen, are too lazy t
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]o fist weave.
Last time I checked, a 75% chance to get average or above average DPS in a fight is better than a 50% chance to get below average DPS in a single fight.
You really need to read other peoples posts if you are going to reply to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troxx
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Bcbrown, I’m not exactly curious why he failed to even respond to this or acknowledge that monks triple attack at level 60 with mainhand.
He ignores anything they doesn’t jive with his preconceived notions.
Remember when he very assertively told a young monk there was no fail message for FD? Or that ANYONE on ANY CLASS could survive AoW if only there were an infinite number of clerics?
Dude isn’t exactly a fount of knowledge.
|
Troxx doesn't understand triple attack is at 60, and my monk is at 52. He can simply agree that 1h can be better at lower levels due to the damage bonus on 2h being lower. But his trolling routine doesnt allow him to admit he was wrong in any scenario.
He still hasn't posted any data by the way. He just talks nonsense and spams.