here we are with a classic case of someone who's simply better off not posting

i'm going to go ahead and put on my lab coat and prescribe you a box of common sense, to be taken liberally as needed anytime you feel the urge to post a two-bit reply to something that is just bounds and leagues over your head. in fact i'm gonna go ahead and get another box on back order because you seem like you're really gonna need it.

now, to get back on topic:

i feel like you can only optimize your loadouts so far in terms of raw damage output before it becomes less an issue of numbers and more an issue of your own skill with said weapon(s). now, i'll admit that i haven't kept up with the numbers game very much, and a lot of it is because i simply haven't cared to outside of helping guildies test different UVs on things. that being said though, i think a fundamental flaw with damage output is that rarely is player skill actually accounted for to the degree that it can be. if you're good with a set of weapons that do less than stellar damage but are much more likely to give you the hit in comparison to another weapon, the damage will end up averaging out more or less.

for example, i'll put myself out there and say that i cannot use any of the alchemer lines in pvp to save my life. obviously, logic would dictate that it's possible that gunning as a whole isn't something that should be considered in my case. however, because there's multiple styles of guns, such as AP or Sentenza (or carbine whatever, they're functionally the same gun with one having a slight poison proc), which essentially favor that precision vs. power concept, the overall damage theory gets played with a bit to the point that ability with a weapon will eventually outweigh raw damage numbers in comparison to a stronger weapon being used by the same person, who may not be as well versed in using it.

now, my own logic gets circumvented a bit when taking into consideration that there are other players who are equally skilled with both weapons, and can get the hit with alchemers in much the same manner that someone else would get a hit with a faster-but-weaker gun. at that point, player skill once again seems to be neglected and/or overgeneralized to just assume that the other player will take the hit, without much consideration for their ability and how much care they take into keeping their booster from being completely drained. i say this, because too often i've seen scenarios where, if a player had been more cognizant (that's a weird word when you type it out) of their boost meter, they could have avoided the extra 2 second boost cooldown and been able to keep the fight in their favor - or, in some cases, turn the tide back to their favor.

in conclusion, while i'm sure having raw numbers to run with will give you a good idea of what to expect from your typical LD match, or your 1v1 situations, or even what someone would actually do for that klondike bar (and are even a boon to have so you don't overestimate your gearsets or underestimate an opponents gearset), that's really only half the battle. i can't bring myself to rag on those who do run damage numbers, because i was one of those kids who was so concerned with IVs and EV training in pokemon and would run damage calcs on supereffective moves, not very effective stuff, and the like. but the point is, after a certain point, numbers can only give you a rough estimation of how the battle(s) will go, and this will continue to be the case until there's some concrete/nonbiased way to factor in player skill as an absolute value to account for the other half. yes, i'm generalizing a bit in terms of halves, but you get the point.