Evans have DoT.Originally Posted by SwordStaker
Evans have Blaze which now mobs the same way as Chain Lightning.
Blaze hits up to 8 while Chain Lightning hits up to 5.
Blaze has a 100% stun chance while Chain Lightning has 90%.
Anything else?
It's not conclusive enough to end on.
DoT is another way of doing damage, what matters is the total. And Evan's is higher when we account for the damage cap.
I/L mob control consists of pulling. Evan mob control consists of pushing. Equivalent. And Evans are stronger.
There is no circumstance where an equally funded I/L or F/P would be preferable to an equally funded Evan, given Evan has more dps and they all have their existing skills.
You're entitled to your own view of what the game should be, regardless of how screwy it is, but if it includes making classes strictly better than one another, most people are going to disagree with you. If you think Evans should be "slightly stronger" in terms of dps, that would be fine, if they give up their party skills and AMs get at least one. Anything else would make AMs obsolete. And you don't want to hear what an AM sounds like when they think they're obsolete, it's the most obnoxious sound on the planet.
Pulling SUCKS compared to pushing. They both have different uses, but pushing is WAY superior.
It's not as bad with teleport, but yeah the point was just to say that Evans aren't inferior to I/Ls in that regard. If the consensus is that they're in fact better than I/Ls in this regard my point is the same.
A/Ms have yet to be revamped again. 8 is the new 6 apparently. My point is even after A/Ms get revamped Evans should still be slightly stronger. Again from a story standpoint, Mir is hundreds and hundreds of years generations of learned abilities.
Again with the story argument. It fails. We don't know for sure if AMs+Bishops existed back then do we? For pineapple's sake Grendel the Really Old could be an AM and he could have been around before Evans even existed.
I say this again: screw story-based logic. The majority of maple players do not care about the past, they care about the present and future. In this regard the game should be balanced enough between classes and there's no valid reason for legends to be stronger than their adv counterparts (in every main aspect of gameplay but mainly in dealing damage) if you are the average mapler. Nice job ignoring my in-depth reasoning for this and jumping back on the story-logic card.
Like Exidous said "If you think Evans should be "slightly stronger" in terms of dps, that would be fine, if they give up their party skills and AMs get at least one." If that won't happen, then AMs should always be stronger than Evans (just slightly to be "fair").
No class should be obsolete when it comes to bossing comparing to another class. Don't kid yourself if you think they should based on some intensely-flawed story-based argument.
peace.
From a story standpoint there should also be only one Evan.
If you want strictly superior classes, that's an acceptable way to do them as well. It's not broken if only one extremely lucky or hard working person gets it.
Grendel took years to obtain and perfect his power which is why he teaches it now. Not only that it's arguable the 4th job instructors are more powerful. Also why should Evan's give up party skills? They could easily give A/M's new party skills while still being slightly weaker. If you still think A/M's need to be stronger even if NEXON gives them party skills while still being weaker then Evan's then this conversation will go no where. Believe me I'm all for power to the Adventurers but even I'll sit here and admit that Aran's should be stronger then heroes, and I'll even argue Demon Slayers should also be stronger. I have neither nor am I making a Slayer and I'll still sit here and admit it. Legends should always be slightly stronger then their counter parts. The perfect balance of this game should be all classes have something to contribute to the party, damage or buffs.
You idiots are still going on about this pomegranate?
This is a debate which is on-topic. You spoiled it by calling people idiots for no reason. Nice job pouring gasoline on the non-existent flame. But I'll stop my side of the discussion about AMs vs. Evans because I think I've already won this debate and I have respect for the work you've put into your calculations, a respect that's starting to diminish due to the above quote.
This doesn't sound like a bad thing at all. It's only bad if you try and make a spark. Which is what you're doing.
i think i've already won this debate...a respect that's starting to diminish due to the above
So if I were to call you an idiot for no good reason at all, that wouldn't be a bad thing? That wouldn't cause any kind of spark whatsoever? ./rhetorical
No, if you were to pour gasoline on a non-existent flame, it wouldn't be a bad thing. Your analogy sucked.
Ok, good for you.
You too.i think i've already won this debate
I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to prove. Looks like you're trying to troll or something.
Calm down man. You're the one who came into the thread announcing that that other guy's logic was fail when he mentioned that he thinks Legends should be better than Adventurers...
Like why argue about something that you have no authority over lol
I'm curious, since you're handling the math and all, Joe... How do you particularly feel about the bishop's being that low in the scale. Note that I'm not asking if you think they should be outDPSing other classes. I'm talking about the gap. Do you feel that the gap should be closer, and if so, by how much %?
Do you believe that the commonness of fire resistance in bosses justifies a FP mage's superior % when compared to battle mages?
I'll note that I'm only asking for personal opinions, and as such... his opinions aren't up for debate (unless he wants em to be)... so the rest of ya'll need to chill.
Resistance doesn't matter since Elemental Reset exists. Only things that could factor in are Weakness and Immunity, so in all situations except immunity, Archmages will be better than Battle Mages. I think Bishops should suck as much as possible because it's funnier that way.
To be honest, I would agree more strongly they should be a bit stronger if every Bishop didn't think they were so entitled to it. In terms of what the current numbers are, Bishops should probably be around 1500%/s since I/L top off at 2100%/s and the new Battle Mage is only 1800%/s.
I'm still hoping they do another buff to Battle Mages in the next patch since they're rather weak. I mean, who the hell thought that 1000%->1040% on Dark Shock was a big deal?
On top of that it was already hitting the damage cap quickly, the way to buff it would've been to make it multi hit.
Honestly given that bams can stack all their auras, bossing groups are going to want at least one in each party anyway. As a class they're going to be at least as desirable as bishops, just on the attacking side rather than the not-dying side.
+20% attack +1 attack speed (+ a significant amount of defense/damage ignore assuming they fix the 1/1 glitch)
Posting Permissions
|
|
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks