Apocalypse Or Ragnarok |
||
Apocalypse or Ragnarok
Offline
Posts: 9
Torn between which relic to make. I will be taking whichever I make to 99, so the question is overall damage/utility which one is better?
Utility, Apocalypse. In imperfect Nyzul groups, for instance, Apoc DRK is a champion with it's independence and respectable output. For anything where independence isn't as notable a benefit(VW, presumably Legion), Ragnarok will beat it handily.
Given the choice, I would absolutely go with Ragnarok. Outside of the roaming instances that I mentioned, an Apoc DRK will be better of using any old GSD with Resolution. A Ragnarok DRK will always be using Ragnarok. cosmolaris said: » Torn between which relic to make. I will be taking whichever I make to 99, so the question is overall damage/utility which one is better? So basically, I'd say if you do other things aside from ws spam events, go with Apoc, otherwise Rag. There are already a zillion threads on this question, and all say the same thing
Apoc does great damage and has better utility. Rag Is easier to deal superior dmg in. Though i think taint will say he outparses on his apoc. I for one made apoc. the only thing i hate is when i miss cata >.> which for some reason happens often... They are very close in damage, and Apoc offers more utility and gear freedom. It comes down to what you like. I am a GS lover so nothing is going to change what I am going to make.
I find the "outside of WS-spam events" conditional to be disingenuous. That implies some sort of minority. WS-spam is almost universally a DD's job. It's niche situations that call for being able to heal yourself.
Fenrir.Minjo said: » I find the "outside of WS-spam events" conditional to be disenguous. That implies some sort of minority. WS-spam is almost universally a DD's job. It's niche situations that call for being able to heal yourself. Claustrum has accuracy on it, which is something that all other elemental staves don't have. That doesn't make it useful in any/all situations.
Catastrophe is nifty, and when it shines, it shines. But the instances where you are relying on yourself to stay alive are few and far between. I think that you're going to get mostly opinion and in the end it's going to come down to personal preference. I feel most threads like this (including some I've made personally) have an OP who already has their mind mostly made up. That being said 90% of the posts will ready as something to the tune of "I think this, but you should do what you want".
That being said, I picked apoc because I want nothing to do with warrior unless I absolutely have to be on it. Fenrir.Minjo said: » Claustrum has accuracy on it, which is something that all other elemental staves don't have. That doesn't make it useful in any/all situations. Catastrophe is nifty, and when it shines, it shines. But the instances where you are relying on yourself to stay alive are few and far between. Horrible comparison. this is not a question
>.> "The thing that looks cool or the one that actually does damage" Apoc Dnt question it just go with it. Fenrir.Minjo said: » Claustrum has accuracy on it, which is something that all other elemental staves don't have. That doesn't make it useful in any/all situations. Catastrophe is nifty, and when it shines, it shines. But the instances where you are relying on yourself to stay alive are few and far between. I think there are subtle differences you don't necessarily account for with pen and paper math, and I feel you're downplaying it's utility. As I mentioned in one of the other 15 threads on this topic: Cata/Apoc might also influence a players playstyle. It's nice to have a pocket whm, or a really reliable healer for events but sometimes you still get nervous relying on someone else (or some people do). I feel the ability to cure myself without pulling back DPS, or more specifically "healing myself more frequently the more aggressively I play" will keep a player more inclined to hold back less (even subconsciously). It may be a non-existant mental block for some players. It might also be almost a negligible difference. I still feel it's an angle worth mentioning. I fail to see the room for interpretation. One is better for a lot of things, one is better for very few. That's not a disputable opinion, that's fact. In all but few events, you're not responsible for healing yourself, and and equipment reassignment is all but nullified by Ragnarok's critical hit rate increase.
What was perhaps a fairly understandably over-emphasized boost years and years ago is no longer such. Pretending that a niche benefit like that is even in leagues with its previous level of relevancy is silly. If you're going to be doing most of the future content of this game, you're going to be better off with Ragnarok. Asura.Kaisuko said: » Fenrir.Minjo said: » Claustrum has accuracy on it, which is something that all other elemental staves don't have. That doesn't make it useful in any/all situations. Catastrophe is nifty, and when it shines, it shines. But the instances where you are relying on yourself to stay alive are few and far between. Horrible comparison. Don't "nuh uh!" me. If you have a rational rebuttal, say so, but a moment ago you quite explicitly said that "it's good because Ragnarok doesn't have it". Different is not better by virtue of being different. Valefor.Rancor said: » this is not a question >.> "The thing that looks cool or the one that actually does damage" Apoc Dnt question it just go with it. "The thing that looks cool or the one that actually does damage" Ragnarok is the one that does damage. Ragnarok.Ashman said: » Fenrir.Minjo said: » Claustrum has accuracy on it, which is something that all other elemental staves don't have. That doesn't make it useful in any/all situations. Catastrophe is nifty, and when it shines, it shines. But the instances where you are relying on yourself to stay alive are few and far between. I think there are subtle differences you don't necessarily account for with pen and paper math, and I feel you're downplaying it's utility. As I mentioned in one of the other 15 threads on this topic: Cata/Apoc might also influence a players playstyle. It's nice to have a pocket whm, or a really reliable healer for events but sometimes you still get nervous relying on someone else (or some people do). I feel the ability to cure myself without pulling back DPS, or more specifically "healing myself more frequently the more aggressively I play" will keep a player more inclined to hold back less (even subconsciously). It may be a non-existant mental block for some players. It might also be almost a negligible difference. I still feel it's an angle worth mentioning. If you're doing any real future/current relevant content, you don't need the utility of Apoc to heal yourself. That is a fact. If it wasn't, then the only viable DD in the game would be apoc drk or dnc, which it clearly isn't. Inb4 Asym Bahamut.Serj said: » Valefor.Rancor said: » this is not a question >.> "The thing that looks cool or the one that actually does damage" Apoc Dnt question it just go with it. Ragnarok.Ashman said: » Fenrir.Minjo said: » Claustrum has accuracy on it, which is something that all other elemental staves don't have. That doesn't make it useful in any/all situations. Catastrophe is nifty, and when it shines, it shines. But the instances where you are relying on yourself to stay alive are few and far between. I didn't say need, I was just offering a different opinion. If Minjo can say Fenrir.Minjo said: » an Apoc DRK will be better of using any old GSD with Resolution. The severity of differences between apoc and rag are greater than claustrum and elemental staves, but even so, if you really want claustrum for that sole purpose, I say go for it. Also, as Ashman said, not everyone will have a pocket whm with them at all times. I personally like to do stuff by myself sometimes, or even have to, and having the extra help from a more versatile weapon suits me more. I don't have either so I can't say first hand, but if you're a competent enough drk, I don't see DD aspect of the two weapons being that far apart anyways. I guess in the end, it basically comes down to player x may log on and only do current content where you're most likely going to have a whm/temps/etc to watch your ***, and player y logging on to *** around with freinds, solo, or what-have-you where you'll want versatility, but still want a a good weapon for current content. It baffles me that we're still falling back on the "if your healers can't find cure in their spell list, get this weapon" excuse. For the time it takes to create a one hundred million gil weapon, you'd think one would take some time to find a competent group of people to play with.
Fenrir.Minjo said: » It baffles me that we're still falling back on the "if your healers can't find cure in their spell list, get this weapon" excuse. For the time it takes to create a one hundred million gil weapon, you'd think one would take some time to find a competent group of people to play with. Edit: and before you go trying to say dicking around doesn't justify getting a relic weapon then you need to start taking FF less seriously. It's almost as rediculous as pretending the discrepancy between ragnarok and apoc is un-nerfed ukko vs farsha on war.
Asura.Kaisuko said: » Fenrir.Minjo said: » It baffles me that we're still falling back on the "if your healers can't find cure in their spell list, get this weapon" excuse. For the time it takes to create a one hundred million gil weapon, you'd think one would take some time to find a competent group of people to play with. No, it isn't. It's a reasonable expectation to have healers who aren't pants-on-head HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE and can cure people. If not, join another PUG. Also, what in the world would you solo on drk with apoc? And building a relic weapon with certain expectations and having them fall short in all realistic scenarios compared to another one is just stupid. Resolution is substantially better than Catastrophe. The two situations really aren't that different. Ukko's on higher level content isn't that far from Resolution, and Ruinator isn't far from Catastrophe. Amusingly enough, your comparison is almost spot-on.
If the best you all have to rebut is "what if he solos a lot" and "I play with morons", I think I'm about done here. Phoenix.Chomeymatt
Offline
Ragnarok /endthread.
This thread is reminiscent of "lolpld."
Bahamut.Serj said: » Asura.Kaisuko said: » Fenrir.Minjo said: » It baffles me that we're still falling back on the "if your healers can't find cure in their spell list, get this weapon" excuse. For the time it takes to create a one hundred million gil weapon, you'd think one would take some time to find a competent group of people to play with. No, it isn't. It's a reasonable expectation to have healers who aren't pants-on-head HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE and can cure people. If not, join another PUG. As much as I'd love for whm's to be competent enough to be able to keep me alive, it doesn't always happen. Even if it's a group of my friends and maybe the whm isn't spectacular at their job, sorry, but I'm not gunna ditch my friends over something so insignificant, especially if I can make up for it on my own. Quote: Also, what in the world would you solo on drk with apoc? Quote: And building a relic weapon with certain expectations and having them fall short in all realistic scenarios compared to another one is just stupid. But I'mma end it there, we're just going to go back and forth on how you think the versatility is moot because *you* don't do anything where you'd want it, be it for fun or otherwise. Bismarck.Bloodbathboy
Offline
You know it Nev!!!
Why compare Catastrophe to Resolution when comparing Apoc and Rag when you should be comparing Entropy and Resolution if that's the case? Not saying Entropy is on par with Resolution but it's a more fair comparison.
|
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|