[dev1024] Job adjustments - RDM

[Crimson_Slasher]

Agreement with supersun, my issue isnt why im shackled to staffs, like i said, everyone knows why, my only statement was to the magic accuracy aspect specifically, and the other reasons were not to be addressed because in short, im well aware of what they do, but i was asking why there was so much contradction over staff vs no staff m.acc on GENERAL content, not situational content. You bringing in the staffs do more than make us more accurate was not something i addressed because frankly, i wasnt even talking about nuke potency, cure potency, evasion/skill boosts, pdt, or anything else.

As far as you ignoring my question, that comes off as a very machiavellian perspective, where as i interperit it, you saw an opertunity where you can in one fell swoop try to silence the nay-sayers who feel staffs offer in many cases, random superfluous enhancements (attack/ranged attack say hello.) to redmage, as well as "defeat" those who say the magic accuracy isnt nessesary on general content.

But thats my understanding of your posts, needless to say, the staff bonuses are a dead-horse topic, and it needs neither to be beaten more, nor do the redmage populace need to be educated on why theyre effective. Thank you sir, but again, on a list of things we as a whole already know and understand.

[SpankWustler]

As far as you ignoring my question, that comes off as a very Machiavellian perspective, where as i interpret it, you saw an opportunity where you can in one fell swoop try to silence the nay-sayers who feel staffs offer in many cases, random superfluous enhancements (attack/ranged attack say hello.) to redmage, as well as "defeat" those who say the magic accuracy isn't necessary on general content.

It's more likely that he just couldn't figure out what you were asking exactly, since the question was worded in a peculiar way. I've gone back two pages and read the question four times, read the discussion about it, and I'm still a little confused.

An answer to the question as I understood it: Different people have different notions of "general" content, and probably even different standards for what "reliable" is, so of course they're going to say different stuff.