On Red Mage melee...

[Aurara]

This is old arguments, actually, like, 2008 old.

But it's been done, it's been parsed, and it's been worded in a way that cannot be more adequately put.

Your disbelief isn't anything new.

There's more, buried under the long history of RDM melee arguments that people ignored throughout the years. There's hard data that's proved it both in parse and in the math. Just because people want to cup their ears, close their eyes and go 'na na na it's not real because it breaks with my preconceptions!' does not change the reality of what actually happened. I sat there and witnessed this guy myself. (probably still have pics buried in my Photobucket, actually.) It was the real deal.

Ask a RDM to try to replicate that now at 90? Doubt it.

Except a situation like this can only happen if the DDs are crap, compare yourself to a polearm sam at 75, you wont even come within 50%. Stop using gimp DDs to prove a point, I'm not the one going "NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH" you are, by screaming that DD rdm can do 80% of a SAM's dmg, using gimp DDs to make yourself look better doesn't help, and in fact renders your arguments moot.

[Seriha]

The couple weeks of general quiet were nice while they lasted, I guess.

AFK obfuscating.

[Hyrist]

I'm not going to waste my breath arguing 4 year old data. The concentration should be on here and now, and the point of the matter is 'damage' isn't going to win RDM any hearts. Any hard evidence of them actually achieving that damage just comes with the arguments players like you bark any time it surfaces. So obviously the answer has to be something you can't deny or accuse your fellow DD's of sucking for: A utility.

[Aurara]

I'm not going to waste my breath arguing 4 year old data. The concentration should be on here and now, and the point of the matter is 'damage' isn't going to win RDM any hearts. Any hard evidence of them actually achieving that damage just comes with the arguments players like you bark any time it surfaces. So obviously the answer has to be something you can't deny or accuse your fellow DD's of sucking for: A utility.

Because its crap data, with crap DDs, your arguments have no basis except "HEY I OUT DMG'D DOMARU SAMS ON RDM AT BIRDS LOL IM SUCH A DD". Face it, you're wrong and the data you have is either faked or as i said before, contains crap DDs which makes your argument worthless and void.

[Seriha]

I'm not going to waste my breath arguing 4 year old data. The concentration should be on here and now, and the point of the matter is 'damage' isn't going to win RDM any hearts. Any hard evidence of them actually achieving that damage just comes with the arguments players like you bark any time it surfaces. So obviously the answer has to be something you can't deny or accuse your fellow DD's of sucking for: A utility.

You're not really doing yourself a favor digging up that old stuff. As is, I was skeptical of it at the time being more on my SAM kick while also having my RDM geared, and our BG Shark Buddies are enjoying themselves ripping into it smelling blood and have their RDM Raeg moment. The whole 80% thing is not something to be proud of or even cling to, for as I've said countless times before, people aren't going to want 80% when they can get 100% (Granted that'll nibble into other DDs, so percentages won't cross over nicely).

While we can try to idealize that we'd make up that 20% by other means, it didn't exist then, doesn't exist now, we have no real indication SE plans to make it exist, and you're grumbling with people who think RDM melee should never happen, or at best, off on your own where you're not ruining their precious gaming experience because we, be it here or Alla, are totally going to effin' ruin how the pros play FFXI.

[Aurara]

I'm totally a BG shark because I call people on their BS right?

[Rearden]

I'm not going to waste my breath arguing 4 year old data. The concentration should be on here and now, and the point of the matter is 'damage' isn't going to win RDM any hearts. Any hard evidence of them actually achieving that damage just comes with the arguments players like you bark any time it surfaces. So obviously the answer has to be something you can't deny or accuse your fellow DD's of sucking for: A utility.

Proud to be a BG shark. Also proud that we're not going to argue 4 year old data when people who actually know that that data is false show up.

[Supersun]

Really? Your great rebuttal essentially boils down to that the parse can't be true because "Sam is a DD"

I have seen the errors of my way. Not even math itself can challenge the mighty Aurara.

You are just hiding behind terms like gimp and DD without giving any proof of why


First off if Sam is a DD and because it is a DD it does more damage then a Red Mage the question is how much. Multiple parses have backed this ~80% claim and while the example parse posted was...slightly old...I have seen other ones since then that have continued to back the 80% claim.

The degree which a parse is accuracy can always be questioned, no parse is 100% accurate, but since you refute the 80% number so quickly surely you must have some other piece of evidence to replace it with. If a Rdm can't do 80% of a Sams DD then how much does it do and what evidence do you have to back it up? Surely, you have something to back your claim and it's not just 'a hunch' because Sam is a DD and Rdm is a mage.


Likewise what do you call gimp? What point does a DD stops being gimp? Because until you can give some form of definition for that you can essentially invalidate any piece of information you receive with the veto of gimp. Hell, the definition might as well be 'if the DD cannot outperform a Rdm by at least 20% then he is gimp'.

Rearden stated that 99% of the population isn't worth comparing too so is 99% of the population gimp? The term gimp derives from someone being crippled. It infers that a 'gimp' player is one that performs to an inferior standard to the average 'healthy' player. If you consider 1% not worth parsing against then you aren't claiming that that they aren't gimp, but they aren't +2 blue box super saiyan elite. Gimp does not mean anyone that didn't have an Amanomurakumo.

Believe it or not those ~80% parses were against above average geared players. Sure they weren't perfect in any way or form, but Hagun + Haidates + a respectable store TP set is certainly not gimp.

Even if we presented the most concretely solid piece of evidence the world has ever had the pleasure of witnessing you could just as easily 'invalidate' it by just claiming that the player wasn't trying or wasn't skilled.


There is literally nothing we could present that could change your mind. That's fine, we all have our personal beliefs. But could you at least try not to make some of the most ridiculous logical fallacies I've seen on the internet and at least present something that has the semblance of evidence if you are going to claim that other people's points are wrong and yours is right?

[Hyrist]

I'll note the laced sarcasm, Seriha.

Again, we agree on the emphasis on utility. But I also acknowledge that there's just a section of player's you're never going to appease. I could care less what they think, to be honest. They're the same type that justify monopolizing ground kings and selling the drops to people, and yet see nothing inherently wrong or immoral with it. Or those who felt justified doing the salvage dupes, or MPking each other in every possible way to try to 'get ahead'.

I've a very choice opinion as those people are concerned.

But there's this wash of 'oh how terrible it is' without any data, without any real effort, and it's just as frustrating to me as the RDMs that believe they should be able to melee in mage gear.

Again, I'll reiterate, there's no pleasing those types. But the vast majority of players that fall in-between the two extremes that frustrate the hell out of me have some valid concerns and actually do look at data objectively. It's for those players I keep in mind that there needs to be something beside raw damage to contribute in the front lines for it to be more broadly acceptable, especially in areas like Abyssea where our utility is really lacking.

[Aurara]

Really? Your great rebuttal essentially boils down to that the parse can't be true because "Sam is a DD"

Where is your argument? all I see here is "YOU'RE WRONG RDM CAN DO IT HERE IS 4 YEAR OLD FAKE DATA" that's not an argument, that's digging a deeper hole for yourself.

I have seen the errors of my way. Not even math itself can challenge the mighty Aurara.

Lol@this statement, you're really upset aren't you? I'm sorry i made you so upset but i have yet to use math, i wasnt the one who used the 80% number to start.

You are just hiding behind terms like gimp and DD without giving any proof of why

Really? because SAM is geared to DD, RDM is not, gimp SAMs are a joke to outparse on any job, so you aren't helping your case in the slightest.

First off if Sam is a DD and because it is a DD it does more damage then a Red Mage the question is how much.

Now we're getting somewhere, and the answer you want to know is, SAM does a lot more DMG than a rdm if geared properly and played correctly.

Multiple parses have backed this ~80% claim and while the example parse posted was...slightly old...I have seen other ones since then that have continued to back the 80% claim.

It does? I'm pretty sure that parse data is faked or has crap DDs with crap gear, where are all of these other parses that support your data, surely you can find these with relative ease and swiftness to back up your alleged claim that RDM can be a viable DD.

The degree which a parse is accuracy can always be questioned, no parse is 100% accurate, but since you refute the 80% number so quickly surely you must have some other piece of evidence to replace it with. If a Rdm can't do 80% of a Sams DD then how much does it do and what evidence do you have to back it up? Surely, you have something to back your claim and it's not just 'a hunch' because Sam is a DD and Rdm is a mage.

I refute it because it's total BS, and it's clear you have 0 understanding of game mechanics, or how DD jobs perform. Truth be told I don't know how a RDM would perform, probably in the 15-20% range if I had to make a logical guess(if that). I can back my claim because I'm not ignorant of how SAM performed at 75 and how RDM DD ability was at 75.

Likewise what do you call gimp? What point does a DD stops being gimp? Because until you can give some form of definition for that you can essentially invalidate any piece of information you receive with the veto of gimp. Hell, the definition might as well be 'if the DD cannot outperform a Rdm by at least 20% then he is gimp'.

Gimp is a crappy DD with crap gear, I'm not saying you need OMG AMAZING SUPREME GEAR, but a decent build, multiple TP/WS set depending on camp etc.

Rearden stated that 99% of the population isn't worth comparing too so is 99% of the population gimp? The term gimp derives from someone being crippled. It infers that a 'gimp' player is one that performs to an inferior standard to the average 'healthy' player. If you consider 1% not worth parsing against then you aren't claiming that that they aren't gimp, but they aren't +2 blue box super saiyan elite. Gimp does not mean anyone that didn't have an Amanomurakumo.

He's saying that since so many players flat out suck, and gear terribly you can't compare yourself to them when you claim to come within 80% of what a SAM does as rdm lol, because fact is you will if they are terribly geared and play like crap.

Believe it or not those ~80% parses were against above average geared players. Sure they weren't perfect in any way or form, but Hagun + Haidates + a respectable store TP set is certainly not gimp.

Let me clear something up for you, Hagun was garbage compared to Tomoe or Levi Course at birdcamp/MJSP/anything not HNM, because penta destroyed everything, any intelligent player would have used polearm in those situations, those who didn't, well i wouldn't consider them all gimp, but if you argued against it you're dumb, and if you choose to play that way that's fine but just know you aren't going to perform as well as a person who used polearm in any of those situations(im not including amano in this at all so dont even bring it up in your argument)

Even if we presented the most concretely solid piece of evidence the world has ever had the pleasure of witnessing you could just as easily 'invalidate' it by just claiming that the player wasn't trying or wasn't skilled.

Prove me wrong then, show me solid evidence and show me the gear you have vs the gear the SAM has.

There is literally nothing we could present that could change your mind. That's fine, we all have our personal beliefs. But could you at least try not to make some of the most ridiculous logical fallacies I've seen on the internet and at least present something that has the semblance of evidence if you are going to claim that other people's points are wrong and yours is right?

Same goes to you.