![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The majority of places in the game where people want to grind, the MOBs are just sitting there like a fucking buffet. It is incredibly easy to control them with Root alone, and the decider on how much you will kill simply comes down to a basic mathematical question of how much damage you are capable of doing and if your group has a sufficient amount of defense to sustain the pace. Being able to potentially kill X amount of MOBs in a given timeframe will result in them doing Y amount of damage, does the team have the heals/slows/regen to match? And if you aren't in a situation where there are essentially unlimited things to pull, then you still want as much DPS as possible. Higher DPS = faster kills = faster respawn = more progression. Quote:
1.) You've never been a high ranked player in any competitive game. 2.) Your understanding of EQ is lagging far behind and/or a Mage killed your family.
__________________
| |||||
|
#2
|
||||
|
Quote:
What you fail to realize is most mobs have such low HP to begin with you don't need amazing DPS to clear content quickly. Average geared players can do it just fine, and at a fast rate. Just because you have a high expectation of xp per hour doesn't mean your xp rate is normal, or what everybody is aiming for. That has been my point, and anybody who plays this game would know that.
__________________
| |||
|
Last edited by DeathsSilkyMist; 07-30-2022 at 12:33 PM..
| ||||
|
#3
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your entire line of thinking is a fallacy anyway though. It doesn't matter if you personally consider a certain slower xp rate to be "fast". That is not the objective most powerful way to play the game. If you are discussing the power level of classes, then you must look at what they bring to the game when people try to maximize their ability. Which doesn't mean only looking at their ability in a perfect scenario, like a Druid when charming, but rather the approximate average of what they contribute in a variety of scenarios (which for EQ can include various group compositions), when playing the game near-optimally in those scenarios. The way you try to talk, it's like arguing that some Tier 3 deck in a Magic the Gathering meta is perfectly competitive because of the winrate you're getting with it at whatever mid-rank you happen to be. That doesn't mean the deck is actually one of the most powerful. The most powerful decks are defined by winrate in high ranked play. Which is exactly why ad populum arguments are often terrible. In order for opinions to be equally valid on a subject, the must have roughly equal levels of expertise. Most people never become a Chess Grandmaster. The 95% of people who play an inferior line in chess are not correct just because they hold a 95% majority. They are simply not at the same level.
__________________
| |||
![]() |
|
|