Job Adjustments in March 2015 Update

[Crevox]

Um no you are missing the point entirely. There is a world of difference between saying you are going to do xyz and we are considering possibly making doing something. If you can't discern the difference between a definite we are doing this and a we are thinking about doing something I don't know what to tell you.

They didn't say they were going to do it though, they said they were "considering" it. They are "currently looking at adjusting" it in the way they stated, and they have "have begun to consider these balance adjustments" for THF and SAM. They simply did not tell us what they were "considering" for SAM. There was no definites, and this is proven further at the end of they post when they said "we wished to communicate these details to you in advance as we continue to thoroughly discuss this matter" because they are still discussing it.

None of this is set in stone. They are still talking about it, however, they were kind enough to let us know ahead of time what they were planning because they are seeking feedback on it.

And based on the quote:

As the one-handed weapon adjustments just took place very recently, we would like to monitor the balance between them and two-handed weapons for a while before we look into two-handed weapon adjustments.

They did not state they were going to make two-handed weapon adjustments. They said they were going to monitor the balance, and then "look into" adjustments. This does not mean there will be adjustments; there may be, there may not be. They are going to look into it. It could happen, or it could not. It depends on how they feel about the balance after "monitoring" it.

This is why I ask for quotes and sources, because people misinterpret.

And everyone got huge dmg augments from skirmish.

Except that two handers roll higher damage values than one handers. This is a especially noticeable buff for Monks and Puppetmasters, who got the two handed damage roll variant on their fists (+36 DMG).

[dasva]

They didn't say they were going to do it though, they said they were "considering" it. They are "currently looking at adjusting" it in the way they stated, and they have "have begun to consider these balance adjustments" for THF and SAM. They simply did not tell us what they were "considering" for SAM. There was no definites, and this is proven further at the end of they post when they said "we wished to communicate these details to you in advance as we continue to thoroughly discuss this matter" because they are still discussing it.

None of this is set in stone. They are still talking about it, however, they were kind enough to let us know ahead of time what they were planning because they are seeking feedback on it.

You are right somewhat I did miss the whole thing was prefaced by a maybe.. .that said there is a certain greater amount of definitiveness to we are doing a certain something than a maybe something.

And based on the quote:



They did not state they were going to make two-handed weapon adjustments. They said they were going to monitor the balance, and then "look into" adjustments. This does not mean there will be adjustments; there may be, there may not be. They are going to look into it. It could happen, or it could not. It depends on how they feel about the balance after "monitoring" it.

This is why I ask for quotes and sources, because people misinterpret..

Except that was exactly how I interpreted it. What your saying just goes back to what I was saying about what looks into and consider means. I was merely comparing it to how when some say something that non definitive and vague that it could easily not happen. Same with that tiny sam blurb.

Except that two handers roll higher damage values than one handers. This is a especially noticeable buff for Monks and Puppetmasters, who got the two handed damage roll variant on their fists (+36 DMG).

Actually from what I've seen it's more complex than just 2hd vs 1hd. You will actually see different amounts on different weapons. Like swd getting more than dagger. And this is how it should be because each weapon type had huge varying amounts of dmg already capable so giving them the same flat amount would've actually been a gimp to the higher dmg ones. By giving the weapons that already had a higher base dmg a even higher amount they maintain to an extent the balance of dmg between them.

Look at it this way if you had a 10 dmg weapon and 1 dmg weapon that attack 10 times as fast the dmgs would be somewhat balanced. But then if you added 1 dmg to each but kept the delays the same you would've only increased the 10 dmg weapon users dmg by around 10% while the 1 dmg weapon would've doubled. A very extreme example to be sure but it's just to illustrate the point I was making.

[Alhanelem]

They didn't say they were going to do it though, they said they were "considering" it. They are "currently looking at adjusting"

This is usually Cryptic SE PR Speak for "we're going to do this." They wouldn't have made post if they weren't actually planning to change something.

[machini]

This is usually Cryptic SE PR Speak for "we're going to do this." They wouldn't have made post if they weren't actually planning to change something.

Yeah, something that people who have no experience with languages other than English might not understand is that, even when translated into English, there is such a thing as nuance. Sometimes, indirect statements are to be interpreted as direct statements of action.

What might be considered passive-aggressive speech in English could very well be proper, polite ways of making statements in other languages.

An example you might be familiar with: No work is to be done, by Jews, on the Sabbath. There is a great deal of argument about what constitutes 'work' in that context. There are also Jews who take it more seriously than others, to the point where they pre-tear pieces of toilet paper for use, for example, because the act of tearing a piece of toilet paper off the roll is considered "doing work".

Some Jews employ "shabbos goy", people whose entire job is to do things for the Jew that the Jew himself is not permitted to do on their Sabbath, as it constitutes 'work'. Such as turning on an air conditioner, turning the lights on in a room, etc, etc. However, in my experience as such, the person desiring the light switch flicked, the AC turned on, a phone call made, etc, must phrase it as a request, or otherwise indirectly. "It sure is hot in here" for "I would like the AC on" or "I can hardly see" for "Please turn on the lights."

As to why it's like that, don't ask me. Not everyone takes it to that extreme.

That's a very specific example, but such constructs can occur in other languages. For example, instead of saying, "I want to talk about the merger", one might say, "It's possible that later a discussion might occur wherein business arrangements could be discussed."

A friend who lives and works in Japan tells me that Japanese speech is often, when literally translated into English, indirect or nebulous. The language employs many set phrases for situations, and the language and the culture are inextricably bound up together in how they deal with politeness. For people who are raised or otherwise well educated on or in the culture these things require no explanation. When translating from one language into another language, wherein speakers of the new language have different cultural expectations on speech, action, and directness, nuance is often lost.

An example with languages I actually have direct knowledge of, in Latin, you never talk about the dead. If someone has died, you do not say, "Commodus has died". You instead say, "Commodus has gone to the ancestors" or "Commodus has gone to the majority", just as in English people sometimes will say, "My grandma has passed on" instead of "My grandma is dead."

[Alhanelem]

Yeah, something that people who have no experience with languages other than English might not understand is that, even when translated into English, there is such a thing as nuance. Sometimes, indirect statements are to be interpreted as direct statements of action.

What might be considered passive-aggressive speech in English could very well be proper, polite ways of making statements in other languages.

An example you might be familiar with: No work is to be done, by Jews, on the Sabbath. There is a great deal of argument about what constitutes 'work' in that context. There are also Jews who take it more seriously than others, to the point where they pre-tear pieces of toilet paper for use, for example, because the act of tearing a piece of toilet paper off the roll is considered "doing work".

Some Jews employ "shabbos goy", people whose entire job is to do things for the Jew that the Jew himself is not permitted to do on their Sabbath, as it constitutes 'work'. Such as turning on an air conditioner, turning the lights on in a room, etc, etc. However, in my experience as such, the person desiring the light switch flicked, the AC turned on, a phone call made, etc, must phrase it as a request, or otherwise indirectly. "It sure is hot in here" for "I would like the AC on" or "I can hardly see" for "Please turn on the lights."

As to why it's like that, don't ask me. Not everyone takes it to that extreme.

That's a very specific example, but such constructs can occur in other languages. For example, instead of saying, "I want to talk about the merger", one might say, "It's possible that later a discussion might occur wherein business arrangements could be discussed."

A friend who lives and works in Japan tells me that Japanese speech is often, when literally translated into English, indirect or nebulous. The language employs many set phrases for situations, and the language and the culture are inextricably bound up together in how they deal with politeness. For people who are raised or otherwise well educated on or in the culture these things require no explanation. When translating from one language into another language, wherein speakers of the new language have different cultural expectations on speech, action, and directness, nuance is often lost.

An example with languages I actually have direct knowledge of, in Latin, you never talk about the dead. If someone has died, you do not say, "Commodus has died". You instead say, "Commodus has gone to the ancestors" or "Commodus has gone to the majority", just as in English people sometimes will say, "My grandma has passed on" instead of "My grandma is dead."

I don't know what that was all about,but I was simply referring to personal experience with official posts in the past that used similar statements. Generally, when they say something like "we're looking into this" it usually means they ARE going to do it (when is anybody's guess) - what they're "looking into" is how to go about it.

[machini]

@Alhanelam, I wasn't replying specifically to you, I just quoted your post to add on to it. No intent to single you out, sorry if I did.

[Crevox]

Also 35k ws? Get on my level bro

Hurray for Indi-Acumen, Geo-Malaise, possible MAB gear, probably other buff/debuff stacking for a magical light weapon skill on a mob that takes extra damage from light.

This is usually Cryptic SE PR Speak for "we're going to do this." They wouldn't have made post if they weren't actually planning to change something.

Oh yes, they are certainly planning on doing it. However, it may still change based on the feedback they receive, and the final details of the adjustments (which weaponskills, how they will be nerfed, values, etc) may still change.

However, either way, their current desire and motivation to make the changes is clear, so we can expect them to be pushing forward to handle this somehow.

[dasva]

Hurray for Indi-Acumen, Geo-Malaise, possible MAB gear, probably other buff/debuff stacking for a magical light weapon skill on a mob that takes extra damage from light.

Possibly mab gear? I mean sure it was a hobbled together ws set but at least give me enough credit to somewhat gear it right lol. And yes there was acumen and malaise from a mule though since I was just rolling with me and a mule I couldn't get any other debuffs/buffs at the time. Though looking into getting an Idris which along with being much stronger malaise/acumen will allow me to throw on light weather and light shot for a bit more dmg plus I have a real ws set now so I should be able to hit the display cap with just that if not maybe I can find a run to add another 30%. I'm fairly certain I can hit the display cap even on a non weak monster with enough buffs/debuffs. A friend did 60k cloudsplitter to Tojil doing similar things as can several other magical ws. But that's precisely the point I was trying to make. When you super buff/debuff for something you can pull of crazy numbers. You take away all those external att buffs/-def debuffs and rudra's is fairly mediocre just like most magical ws are fairly meh without the right + mab buffs/-mdb debuffs. But if Rudra's OPness is going to come from obviously buffed up att then it's perfectly logical for me to buff my ws with things that will boost it.

[machini]

I don't personally think it makes much sense that daggers do more damage than great axes, weaponskill or otherwise.

Ask a lumberjack if he would like to chop down trees with a knife. Heavy weapons do more damage in real life, halberds and soforth were used by countercavalry divisions to cleave horses basically in half, and put the mounted knights down into the mud. You didn't see those mountcleaving divisions using knives. Knives are traditionally more effective and damaging when used by assassins, dipped in poison, to stab in the unprotected back, or to cut throats, again usually by unexpected rear attack.

Obviously FFXI is not real life, and has its own system with weaponskills, which are not the same as reality, where attacks are basically analog single strikes. So I do allow for the game/fantasy/FFXI weaponskill factor, and soforth, but even so it somehow doesn't seem right when a weapon that is basically a glorified toothpick, deals more damage than an enormous heavy countercavalry great axe.

I really do not mean to be rude, but there is so much wrong with what you think real warfare is like that I cannot even begin to address all the wrong points.

I have seriously sat here for ten minutes now typing, deleting, typing and then deleting, over and over, various responses to you. I am trying very hard not to be insulting, but I have a very bad feeling that you have gotten almost all of your knowledge in life about these things from movies, video games, and the (recent) History Channel.

Cavalry were rare. Heavy Calvary more so. Horses were expensive to feed, to train, and to keep. Those able to afford not just a horse, but a heavy war horse, trained to function in battle (which is pretty much the exact opposite of what horses want to do in that situation), but also armor and weapons for themselves (to be considered 'knights'), were the top of the top in the military at the time.

Getting a "mounted knight[] down into the mud", as you put it, was quite different than what you seem to think it was. A knight, clad in plate, trained for long years to its use, was far, far more mobile than most people seem to think they were. You could run, jump, climb, roll, and do cartwheels in plate armor. It was both far lighter, and far less cumbersome to wear, that most people think it was.

The best way to deal with an armored opponent wearing anything heavier than a soft leather is to beat them to death. Axes and swords are less use against your traditional plate-armored knight than hammers, maces, and the occasional warpick. Mail and Plate are excellent at negating the main danger posed by bladed weapons, which is being cut by them. Once this advantage of a bladed weapon is negated, the only use it really has is "how heavy is this thing so I can beat you to death with it". You wanted something like a mace, or a hammer, that let you put a large amount of force on a very small area. The pick follows the same idea. These were weapons that were most effective against the armored knight, because you could dent the armor in to them, or poke straight through it like someone (sufficiently strong) could do with an icepick to a tin can.

If you actually managed to get the armored knight close to you, to where longer weapons were no avail, you actually would use a dagger to kill them. You would shove it into their throat, under their chin, down past their collarbone into their common carotid, under their arm, into their groin, or any other spot where the armor did not protect that was next to impossible to hit on an upright, moving opponent with any degree of accuracy.

What was most likely to happen is you would beat the shit out of each other with something large, blunt, and heavy, and then once you had concussed your opponent sufficiently, they'd lay there until the battle was over, at which time you would see if they were alive. If they were, you'd decided whether they were worth ransoming, or if you should just kill them.

The commonly conceived 'long sword' or western military tradition was not a main armament. It served a purpose similar to a handgun does for the modern military today. It was your secondary, backup weapon. Archers had swords to use when the enemy closed in on them, a knight would carry a sword in case they lost their other weapon, cavalry carried swords because a cutting weapon was smarter to use on horseback when running down fleeing foes (which, that, and harassing the enemies flanks and attacking lighter formations, was what you used them for, other than sheer terror and shock value). Even then, the knight would still carry a dagger for closer, more intimate combat with others, and because they were actually quite useful, and used as utensils when eating.

You state that "heavy weapons do more damage in real life", but that is simply a function of mass and acceleration. Assuming you can wield it, a 2 pound hammer is going to do more damage to someone than a one pound hammer, just as an 8 pound sledge will do still more. And against any armored opponent, you would be better off beating them to death than trying to cut them (which mail and plate make impossible), or stab them (which is not impossible but incredibly difficult with either mail or plate).

Axes could be useful, but they fall into the same category as your typical two-handed sword in this case: it is not useful for its ability to cleave, cut, or hack. It is useful because it is a large, heavy object that you can put a great deal of force behind.

Final Fantasy XI is a video game. A fantasy video game. Reality has no place in it. Or are you going to start complaining about magic, next, since that's also "unrealistic"?

If you have real issues with Rudra's Storm's mechanics, and how it makes DNC and THF alternatives to eternal SAM and MNK spam, say them. But don't try to bring up "it's unrealistic" when you don't even know what "realistic" is.