Optimal is not mathematically the best numbers inventable by a brain fantasizing about might-have-beens on the server, but the best numbers achievable under the constraints of the devs design for what should be achievable, and optimal builds should be roughly equal with some leeway for give and take regarding what they're good at. A wizard, built well, is not going to compete at being a melee basher with a battlecleric. A spellsword, built well, is not going to be competing with a caster cleric at being a caster.JustMonika wrote: Sat Feb 29, 2020 11:47 am If a build is completely and totally optimal the team often -undermine- that build [Monk, anyone?] in order to effectively penalise people taking optimal builds!
If you are good at something, you should also be bad at something, or somethings. An archer is not going to win at battleaxes with a barbarian. The barbarian probably shouldn't out-shoot the ranger. The two actually do fairly similar damage, however. The archer has options for staying out of combat, generally, and the barbarian is a meatball who doesn't stay out of combat at all.
On paper, the two are fairly balanced vs each other. I stress that this is on paper, as in play things are affected by a LOT of variables, CJ and Zav stay away from me. I am not afraid of you.
If a build is totally dominant, it does, indeed, get nerfed, because it's performing well above where they want it to, and where they want things is what's optimal, as -XXX- just said.
edit: I am afraid of CJ and Zav