General

@ImaClubYou: you forgot the important part, you say they're weak because they don't use their strength, i say they're not weak for not using their strength.

[quote=jolteon7]Do I have to post a video of me dancing naked and singing this to you for it to set into your thick skull?[/quote]

Only if you think you need to. On the real though, don't be ignorant.

[quote=jolteon7]Everyone knows that 90% of the Bishop population are either mules or play the game for other reasons besides having good damage. No one is arguing that the stereotype of the bishop community is weak, because if you see a bishop, there is a solid chance that he/she sucks.[/quote]

[b]Exactly. Didn't I already explain this?[/b]

[quote=jolteon7]What this thread and every bishop on it are trying to say is that the stereotype that the class (the class Nexon devoloped, the class, the class, not the players, the class, the base skills, the attacking potential, the class, not the people, the class, the damn class, like wtf the class) is too weak to try to attack, is no longer true.[/quote]

I'm not denying this. But the stereotype still exist, its only been a few months, you can't expect [b]anyone[/b] who isn't a Bishop to not agree with this. Whether you think the stereotype is right or wrong, a stereotype is a stereotype, it will be a while for something like this to go away. And I think you've said class enough times.

And, you're asking why I am on the Bishop boards? A Dark Knight is here arguing with me as well, obviously you're siding with him. I can't take you seriously on that note.

[quote=ImaClubYou]My argument: Yes they are not known for damage.
Your argument: I acknowledged this before you even came to this thread and I completely agreed and supported it.

Yeah, I also said that myself.

I also said this.[/quote]

Do I have to post a video of me dancing naked and singing this to you for it to set into your thick skull?

Everyone knows that 90% of the Bishop population are either mules or play the game for other reasons besides having good damage. No one is arguing that the stereotype of the bishop community is weak, because if you see a bishop, there is a solid chance that he/she sucks.

What this thread and every bishop on it are trying to say is that the stereotype that the class (the class Nexon devoloped, the class, the class, not the players, the class, the base skills, the attacking potential, the class, not the people, the class, the damn class, like wtf the class) is too weak to try to attack, is no longer true.

Hopefully this ends your idiotic arguing with every person who posts. I still have no clue why you are on a Bishop thread in the first place.

But in all honesty, i have no pants on. I can make the video.

Stop beating a dead horse guys, e_o

We all agree. Let's all just get along now and continue with our lives.

Happy Mapling~

[quote=darkspawn980]@ImaClubYou:
>your argument: they are not known for damage.
>my argument: just because they aren't known for damage means they can't dish it[/quote]

My argument: Yes they are not known for damage.
Your argument: I acknowledged this before you even came to this thread and I completely agreed and supported it.

[quote=darkspawn980]they are known as a weak class because of a stereotype, not because their damage IS weak.[/quote]

Yeah, I also said that myself.

[quote=darkspawn980]they're not the strongest, but they're nowhere near the weakest at this point, which is the whole point.[/quote]

I also said this.

@ImaClubYou:
i'm not name calling, i never name-call unless it's required, i'm honestly saying that your definition of "weakness" is flawed, which makes your statements wrong. here, i'll put it this way.

Topic: bishops are no longer weak

>your argument: they are not known for damage.
>my argument: just because they aren't known for damage means they can't dish it

they are known as a weak class because of a stereotype, not because their damage IS weak.

they took the title of weak in 2006, then they started spamming ultimates left and right, and became a force to be reckoned with. then BB came, they became weak again, now ascension came, not weak anymore, they can dish decent damage, and on top of that are GREAT support.

they're not the strongest, but they're nowhere near the weakest at this point, which is the whole point.

some examples of great support classes known for their damage:
Evans with soul stone, can revive you, and deal max damage quite easily.
Demon slayers, sporting Bind and leech aura on top of their massive resistance, can ensure that nobody dies on a run
shadowers, able to smoke, dish out great damage, and be used as seduce mules without much difficulty.

classes that provide great support, and aren't known for their damage, even if they're able to deal some good damage? [b]bishop[/b]

@darkspawn980: I hope you know there is more than one way to define weak. In true and slang definition.

if you know what a stereotype is, than what are you doing against me?

"you can't properly discuss this thread."

Please, don't resort to indirect name-calling, a blow lower than what required and is not needed.

If you can understand this, no class is weak, it is the people who play them who are weak. And, sadly, a high population of those "weak" players are Bishops. Do you dare not agree? Turn your head towards other classes. Of course there are other classes that can be defined as "weak" but the ones who took that title since 2006 were Bishops(Priest).

Why do I call them weak? Because they are not [b]known[/b] for damage. They are known as a [b]support[/b] class. Support is not known for damage and a person who dosen't do damage is considered [b]weak[/b] compared to others.

[quote=ImaClubYou]@darkspawn980: Earlier you implied you knew what a stereotype is. It seems you don't.

If you were 100 Dark Knights in one that stereotype you are trying to conjure might be more believable. Sadly you aren't, you and babyrice do not account for the entire population of Dark Knights.

You don't train, boss, or HB people. Well sir, you are one-of-a-kind aren't you? Stereotype dosen't necessarily mean everyone. It means the vast majority are similar.[/quote]

i know what a stereotype is, i've been living with them my whole life, you are the one that doesn't seem to understand what being weak means. and since you got the meaning of the word "weak" wrong, you can't properly discuss this thread.

how about you define to me, in your own words, what being "weak" is. because from what i get from you, being weak means not using your strength, wether you have any or not.

@darkspawn980: Earlier you implied you knew what a stereotype is. It seems you don't.

If you were 100 Dark Knights in one that stereotype you are trying to conjure might be more believable. Sadly you aren't, you and babyrice do not account for the entire population of Dark Knights.

You don't train, boss, or HB people. Well sir, you are one-of-a-kind aren't you? Stereotype dosen't necessarily mean everyone. It means the vast majority are similar.

@ImaClubYou: of course i can, you're arguing that simply because they don't attack makes them weak, i'm not proving your point at all.

ALL of the bishops can get off their rope and attack, all of them, they simply choose not to, and people actually allow it. this has nothing to do with their weakness or strength.

and i guess me and babyrice are the weakest DrK's in the world then, babyrice can hit max damage on almost every monster there is, but he doesn't go bossing, training or anything, so since he doesn't do anything, he's weak.

and i don't train, i don't even boss anymore, hell, when i get partied i don't even bother HB-ing, so i guess i'm weaker than every bishop then! at least they HS while they sit on the rope.

I think jolteon7's point was the labeling issue with Bishops.
People continue to believe that Bishops are weak and can be nothing but mules so the general Bishop community follows the the general consensus thus creating a cycle.
I think that's what the labeling theory means.... >.>
Kind of sounds like a defeatist in a way.

. . . .How did this thread get derailed?

@darkspawn980: You're only proving my point.

Lets use your Dark Knight example. You're implying that if Dark Knights just hung on ropes they would be labeled the same way Bishops would be. This is true because they Have support Buffs like HB and Iron Will. What you're not getting is that Dark Knights DO attack. With that being said, Dark Knights being a solely support class cannot exist as a stereotype.

Another point is yes, I said it a million times. Bishops can HURT monsters. But what most people refuse to believe is that almost ALL of them [b]can't.[/b]

Following the GM logic, it isn't even considered a class. You can't pin me down on that.

@ImaClubYou: so, if a Dark knight just stayed afk, barely went training or bossing, and did nothing but talk on BL, even if he could down any boss short of pink bean and empress, that would make that DrK weak?

just because they don't use something, means they're weak, those are two VERY different things.

a bishop is a better class damage wise, than several others, this isn't biased by who plays it or how he plays it, it's a FACT.

following your logic, a GM is weak, even if they can destroy empress at the flick of a finger, simply because they never appear.
read the top-rated comment, that's exactly the only issue. bishops are strong, they just don't show it at all.

Thank you, I've noticed everyone against this were Bishops. It takes guts to accept what is against your people.

I agree with Naritta, but I also agree that "bishops are weak" is a stereotype. If it weren't a stereotype, we wouldn't have the threads where bishops complain about being forced to hang on a rope by their LHC party, even when they can do decent damage. It's not an old stereotype imo, because so many people still believe in it. Personally, I would say that a lot of the active bishops on BasilMarket have some sort of funding, or are planning on funding a little bit. In terms of the rest of the bishop population, however, I would guess that a good number are still mules, or people whose primary interest isn't funding. I have friends that only created a bishop because they assume bishops are only support, and therefore require no funding whatsoever. Obviously, that's proven false. So yeah, looking at the entire bishop population, I can see where the stereotype emerged. I don't believe it's an entirely correct stereotype, although I do believe it's a stereotype.
That's just my two cents.

@darkspawn980: Is it not true? If a huge population of Bishops and Priest are still rope happy campers then the stereotype that they are weak is true.

Even if all the potentially godly Bishops gathered together in one area, it still wouldn't be enough to prove otherwise.

@ImaClubYou: you claim the stereotype to be true, or at the very least give that impression. the stereotype isn't true anymore, people just believe it to still be true.

[quote=darkspawn980]@imaclubyou: the problem is not that they don't understand what the stereotype is, but that you're pushing the boundaries of the stereotype, a bishop is added to a party over other classes because of their HS, that's it, wether or not they attack is a whole different business, the stereotype of "bishops are weak" was formed after their damage fell considerably behind, tot he point that most bishops didn't bother training and became nothing more than rope mules.

now they've been brought up to speed, but the people that play them decided to be lazy asses and stay in the rope, if the bishops don't do crap, the stereotype won't go away.

the point of this thread is to inform this to people, it's an old stereotype, no longer valid, and since the ropehugging mules do nothing to help the old idea go away, he's made this thread. people who actually PLAY their bishops and mained them/gave them some sort of funding and actually PLAYED the class, those know bishops aren't nowhere near as weak as they were post-BB.[/quote]

I don't understand, I said exactly everything you said.

@imaclubyou: the problem is not that they don't understand what the stereotype is, but that you're pushing the boundaries of the stereotype, a bishop is added to a party over other classes because of their HS, that's it, wether or not they attack is a whole different business, the stereotype of "bishops are weak" was formed after their damage fell considerably behind, tot he point that most bishops didn't bother training and became nothing more than rope mules.

now they've been brought up to speed, but the people that play them decided to be lazy asses and stay in the rope, if the bishops don't do crap, the stereotype won't go away.

the point of this thread is to inform this to people, it's an old stereotype, no longer valid, and since the ropehugging mules do nothing to help the old idea go away, he's made this thread. people who actually PLAY their bishops and mained them/gave them some sort of funding and actually PLAYED the class, those know bishops aren't nowhere near as weak as they were post-BB.

My problem is that they attack really slowly. Angel Ray is pretty boring.

Hmph, okay. I'll concede to you. Not like anything I say will help anyone understand what a stereotype is. That's my only concern on this thread.

Are you guys still arguing over this?

People, people-- CALM DOWN.

The point of the thread is, and has already been explained that: Though the Bishop stereotype exists it no longer applies to people who actively play their Bishops. It applies because due to recent patches [b]Bishops have the potential to be a class that can attack.[/b] And no, we're not going to compare classes, because it's not about them. It's about BISHOPS. Yes a Bowmaster with the exact same amount of funding as a Bishop will have faster damage and whatnot but that's not the POINT.

The point is that Bishops have [i]changed.[/i] Now we're not the [i]best attackers[/i] but that doesn't mean we can't [i]be[/i] attackers. And we can say that now because of the recent patches. Assuming no class is funded it's fair to say that a Bishop can attack while dealing a substantial amount of damage.

If we take funds into account, then yeah, everyone knows a class can be super duper woopdy doo strong.

There are countless mules [i]but those aren't Bishops, they're mules.[/i] It's the exact same as a person using a level 10 noob to merch. It's a mule. Not an explorer or whatever their character is.

[quote=Icephoenix21]LOL? I could say the same about you, and attacking bishops. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

I like how you have no proof of numbers but pulled them out of your ass. Most high-leveled, actively playing bishops (or active level 200 bishops) have bothered to fund themselves, and I've yet to see anyone regret doing so. I am well aware of the stereotype, but as Shinku replied to your statement of "The title of this thread is about a Bishop stereotype, not damage output, what do you expect anyone to talk about?" and said "about how it's a stereotype that no longer applies.". Are you really that daft?

Even if some bishops may be "noobs" as you say, so are a good number of non-bishop 4th jobs. Geuss bishops have the advantage there, because even if they are weak, they can get into a party. Whether it be for training, or bossing. So funding a bishop is the best of both worlds. I get support, and I get damage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHB3GtdNvdI&list=UUkl6HJIPDO5jMd057i-5YKA&index=7&feature=plcp
Perfect example of how a bishop can be one of the most powerful classes in the game.
Yeah, we're underrated and perhaps the underdogs, but that's okay, the ignorant can stick to other bandwagon classes.

I think I'd have to disagree with your second, fourth, and last statement.
-At least around here, most sports players are white :f3:
-I don't even know where you pulled that English 'stereotype' from ._.[/quote]

Jesus, you still neglect to believe what a [b]stereotype[/b] is.

Its not pulled out any ass. Its PROOF. Its true Bishops always get in parties. You know why? Because of that exact [b]stereotype.[/b] They aren't in the party because they will help out in attacking, they're in in because they're going to hang on a rope and buff every 2 minutes and MAYBE attack ONCE every 10 minutes. In fact you pulling that is unrelated to this subject.

I don't need to see a video of a Bishop. I never said Bishops are weak. I said the majority of people who PLAY Bishops are weak. I already saw that 5 minute solo, do I need to see anything else to comprehend a Bishops potential?

You can disagree with the second and forth statement all you want, in America, its a well known [b]stereotype[/b] Wherever you're from, there can be different [b]stereotypes[/b]. Again you fail to understand what that is.

THANK YOU for these quotes.

[quote=Icephoenix21] Most high-leveled, actively playing bishops (or active level 200 bishops) have bothered to fund themselves, and I've yet to see anyone regret doing so.[/quote]

You just said not to make assumptions out the ass. Well here you are doing the exact same thing. A little ironic? Only difference is mines are true.

[quote=Icephoenix21]-Most people who just hang on ropes and do nothing but buff are either mules, or will never get to 180+.[/quote]

Thanks for helping me gather more info. You said [b]Most[/b], will never get to 180+, or mules. Do you still refuse to believe the [b]stereotype,[/b] Bishops are weak? As long as there is people like this, and you said [b]most[/b] of them, then this [b]stereotype[/b] will never cease to exist.

Oh, and... that last post where you said," that's how I am, deal with it," tells me not to take you seriously and everything you say is just a sad attempt to anger me.

@inv16: If you call that a win, I hate to see what you call a lose~

@Troisky: I get banned lots on basil. That's why the magical land of pineapples and chinchillas is better than basil

[quote=Icephoenix21]@inv16: I got hacked once. I got over it.
[/quote]
Yea but I got hacked not so long ago=no time to get over it+I got hacked twice=WIN <3

[quote=TroiSky]@Icephoenix21: LOL .. with a giant potion .. feels good to post again, I got banned for "attacking" again ._.[/quote]

u violent pvping bishop..

stop attacking everyone u see D:<!

@Icephoenix21: LOL .. with a giant potion .. feels good to post again, I got banned for "attacking" again ._.

@inv16: I got hacked once. I got over it.
@TroiSky:Hi derr Jon! ^_^ Pretty sure a beginner could beat his zak time

[quote=TroiSky]I'm pretty sure any Bishop here can beat him ..[/quote]

i might not beat him if i use my normal equips

but then again my normal equips are lvl 0~15

-winks winks-

[quote=Icephoenix21]Okay, [i]I'm[/i] pretty sure I could beat you in a zak arm race, then.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure any Bishop here can beat him ..

@Icephoenix21: OK,in order to stop you all,the picture you see here isn't updated and I got hacked in the process
And you guys aren't even my lvl and definetaly more funded than me,than no thanks
@jolteon7:Saw you're reply now,and you guys are just trolling me now </3

[quote=inv16]@ThatWasMyKil: Because you have more funding than me,but I'm pretty sure I'd beat you if we had the same funding [/quote]

Ok, then [i]I'm[/i] pretty sure i could beat you in a Zak arms race.

[quote=inv16]@ThatWasMyKil: Because you have more funding than me,but I'm pretty sure I'd beat you if we had the same funding [/quote]

Okay, [i]I'm[/i] pretty sure I could beat you in a zak arm race, then.

@ThatWasMyKil: Because you have more funding than me,but I'm pretty sure I'd beat you if we had the same funding

[quote=ImaClubYou]You're right, you never said you didn't see any, but that's what you're implying.

Oh so enjoyable, right. [b]Its people like you who don't know enough of one thing but post hoping you'll be right that makes things truly enjoyable.[/b]
[/quote]

LOL? I could say the same about you, and attacking bishops. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

[quote=ImaClubYou]
Ratio's aren't assumptions, its based off facts.

If you want insight, here. 9:10 ratio that most Bishops have the floor wiped with them, last 10% are godly. 90% of the Bishop population are noobs, thus, the stereotype,"Bishops are weak," come into play.[/quote]

I like how you have no proof of numbers but pulled them out of your ass. Most high-leveled, actively playing bishops (or active level 200 bishops) have bothered to fund themselves, and I've yet to see anyone regret doing so. I am well aware of the stereotype, but as Shinku replied to your statement of "The title of this thread is about a Bishop stereotype, not damage output, what do you expect anyone to talk about?" and said "about how it's a stereotype that no longer applies.". Are you really that daft?

Even if some bishops may be "noobs" as you say, so are a good number of non-bishop 4th jobs. Geuss bishops have the advantage there, because even if they are weak, they can get into a party. Whether it be for training, or bossing. So funding a bishop is the best of both worlds. I get support, and I get damage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHB3GtdNvdI&list=UUkl6HJIPDO5jMd057i-5YKA&index=7&feature=plcp
Perfect example of how a bishop can be one of the most powerful classes in the game.
Yeah, we're underrated and perhaps the underdogs, but that's okay, the ignorant can stick to other bandwagon classes.

[quote=ImaClubYou]
Like how most people of Asian decent have squinted eyes. True? Some may be offended(Obviously like you). But yes it is true [b]most[/b] of the time
Like how most people of African decent are good at playing sports. True? Not 100%, but [b]mostly[/b] true.
Like how most people of Mexican decent are poor and all live together in the same roof. True? For the [b]most[/b] part, yes.
Like how most people of English Decent like surfing and guitars. True? Not entirely, but on [b]almost[/b] all occasions, yes.
[b]Like how most people who use Bishops as there main and only like to hang on ropes and do nothing but buff. True? For almost EVERY occassion, yes, and there is even less Bishops to prove otherwise.[/b]

Are you sure you know the definition of Stereotype? Its not a type of radio if you didn't know.[/quote]

I think I'd have to disagree with your second, fourth, and last statement.
-At least around here, most sports players are white :f3:
-I don't even know where you pulled that English 'stereotype' from ._.
-Most people who just hang on ropes and do nothing but buff are either mules, or will never get to 180+.

[quote=ImaClubYou][b]Like how most people who use Bishops as there main and only like to hang on ropes and do nothing but buff. True? For almost EVERY occassion, yes, and there is even less Bishops to prove otherwise.[/b]

Are you sure you know the definition of Stereotype? Its not a type of radio if you didn't know.[/quote]

Dude wtf. The thread, and all the bishops in here are saying that the class isn't weak anymore. I don't know why you continue to argue that a large boner of the population suck and/or are hs mules. Everyone knows that and is not what we are saying at all.

This thread is designed to encourage bishops to actually try on their Bishops because, unlike 2 years ago, its actually worth it now.

[quote=inv16]@jolteon7: It looks like you haven't read what I said,I said you're still considered as a support class but it's not the only thing you can do
BUT compared to other attackers bishops aren't that good[/quote]

Pretty sure I could be you and any of your friends in a Zak arm race

@jolteon7: It looks like you haven't read what I said,I said you're still considered as a support class but it's not the only thing you can do
BUT compared to other attackers bishops aren't that good

You're right, you never said you didn't see any, but that's what you're implying.

Oh so enjoyable, right. Its people like you who don't know enough of one thing but post hoping you'll be right that makes things truly enjoyable.

Ratio's aren't assumptions, its based off facts.

If you want insight, here. 9:10 ratio that most Bishops have the floor wiped with them, last 10% are godly. 90% of the Bishop population are noobs, thus, the stereotype,"Bishops are weak," come into play.

Like how most people of Asian decent have squinted eyes. True? Some may be offended(Obviously like you). But yes it is true [b]most[/b] of the time
Like how most people of African decent are good at playing sports. True? Not 100%, but [b]mostly[/b] true.
Like how most people of Mexican decent are poor and all live together in the same roof. True? For the [b]most[/b] part, yes.
Like how most people of English Decent like surfing and guitars. True? Not entirely, but on [b]almost[/b] all occasions, yes.
[b]Like how most people who use Bishops as there main and only like to hang on ropes and do nothing but buff. True? For almost EVERY occassion, yes, and there is even less Bishops to prove otherwise.[/b]

Are you sure you know the definition of Stereotype? Its not a type of radio if you didn't know.

[quote=ImaClubYou]To say you don't see high level Arans is ignorant isn't it. [/quote]

I never said I don't see any. I rarely see any, and hardly any good ones at that. I can name two off the top of my head, one of which barely logs on.

[quote=ImaClubYou]
I wouldn't facedesk myself because you're not worth it to hurt myself over your overconfident ego.[/quote]

That's who I am. Deal with it. It's people like you that make the other Maple Forum sites [i]so[/i] much more enjoyable.

[quote=ImaClubYou]
Lets do another comparison. There is significantly [b]less[/b] people in Khaini then there is in Scania. I see many High-level Arans Bossing. In fact most of our most known Maplers in Khaini are in fact Arans. Now Scania, there can be well over 5 times as much people there than here. I've seen enough Arans, midly strong and strong. There should roughly be 4 times more of you guys prancing around/[/quote]

You know, assumptions won't get you very far.

Edit: @VinnSword: Hi Vince!

I see how mad you are, its a relevant comparison by the way.

To say you don't see high level Arans is ignorant isn't it. I wouldn't facedesk myself because you're not worth it to hurt myself over your overconfident ego.

Lets do another comparison. There is significantly [b]less[/b] people in Khaini then there is in Scania. I see many High-level Arans Bossing. In fact most of our most known Maplers in Khaini are in fact Arans. Now Scania, there can be well over 5 times as much people there than here. I've seen enough Arans, midly strong and strong. There should roughly be 4 times more of you guys prancing around/

The title of the thread is that stereotype. The OP was stating an opinion of how it dosen't exist when it still clearly does.

Just because you get your advantages the very 1st day dosen't mean the stereotype will disappear. For example, when the Blacks were freed from slavery, did everyone acknowledge that? No. In fact, the vast majority of people were against setting them free other than the music industry and younger children. Saying the stereotype dosen't exist is good example of ignorance.

Until I see at least 10 channels where a Priest or Bishop attacks instead of hang on a rope everyday [b]consistently[/b], then that stereotype will forever haunt Bishops until this game closes itself down.

[quote=ImaClubYou]The title of this thread is about a Bishop stereotype, not damage output, what do you expect anyone to talk about?[/quote]

about how it's a stereotype that no longer applies.

[quote=Raskler]All the information needed to prove bishops are in fact as capable as any other class of damage has already been said time and time again in this thread. People are either extremely stupid, and cant comprehend the difference between a hs nule and a active bishop, or are just ignorant to the point of idiocy. I think this thread should be locked now tbh...[/quote]

The title of this thread is about a Bishop stereotype, not damage output, what do you expect anyone to talk about?

@Raskler: I concur, my good sir, I concur.

Acknowledging my statement as ignorant is pretty ignorant in itself.

The fact that I use DB for an example is because what are DBs known for? [b]High damage output.[/b] Last time I talked about a Bishop it wasn't about damage.

Therefor the inevitable stereotype came to existence.

[quote=ImaClubYou]What I mean by Bishops are weak is that the majority of Bishops you see can barely take care of themselves, mule or main.

Its possible that the damage curve for Bishops may be the lowest in terms of a chart comparing funding for them specifically.[/quote]

This has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in a long while.

To just 'generalize' bishops as a weak class overall like that is just dumb.

I could say that dual blades are a "weak class" just because I see a lot of sucky, weak dual blades.

Your point? :f3:

@jolteon7 Are think you're talking about this thread?
http://www.southperry.net/showthread.php?t=49311

A Wild Hunter's ultimate hits 10 times for 180% and another hit for 850%.

Do you think its enough to be on par with other classes?

post patch its 375 x 4, which is 1500% + 340 from tele. Makes it 4122% per second. I dont know if there is a thread with dps calculations, but i would love to see a comparison.