Quote Originally Posted by Vendalwind View Post
IM BACK EARLY WITHOUT SELF CONTROL!
Here to tell you that I did read your post, but your post didn't respond to mine... so Uh. Pot calling the kettle black?
It wasn't lazy. your post literally had dis-connected statements. I don't always go full detail rip mode cause I you know... have other things to do with my life?
The level of personal attack you go to here while only citing an assumption. Wow. Much Wow.
You are the one assuming I didn't read your post. (btw I definitely read your posts)
While still avoiding critically responding to any of the questions posed to you. Hrmmm
?

I'm sorry, but I seriously question your reading comprehension abilities if you can't understand what I was saying in that post. Your logic is frankly garbage and assumes that, first, party comp is designed to be a certain way forever just because of the type of jobs the game started with, and second that the fact that encounters are designed to accomodate double melee means parties are meant to bring double melee as the standard. That makes no sense whatsoever, and as I explained in the post, you could use the same logic to suggest that parties are meant to use a standard 4-ranged comp instead because sticking a ranged in a position capable of accommodating a melee has no drawbacks whatsoever.