BST ready/sic/reward range

[machini]

I don't think punishing people for using popular strategies is the best approach here.

Please reread what I said. People who continue to use popular strategies would have the same drop rates and drop quality they always did. People who use unpopular strategies would receive increased drop rates and drop quality.

Under that system, people could continue to do things exactly the way they have been doing them and never notice the change, unless their strategy became unpopular, in which case they would see their loot improve.

This isn't punishing people who use cookie-cutter strats. It's rewarding people who don't.

[machini]

To give a possible example with possible values, let's say for each job in your party/alliance that is not one of the 8 most popular jobs, drop rates go up 10%.

So if you have an entire party of unpopular jobs, and you clear something where the normal drop rate for an item is 20%, that goes up from 20% to 32%.

That's not punishing people for doing what's popular and tried and true and tested. That's rewarding people for doing stuff differently.

[Alhanelem]

Please reread what I said. People who continue to use popular strategies would have the same drop rates and drop quality they always did. People who use unpopular strategies would receive increased drop rates and drop quality.

That's not punishing people for doing what's popular and tried and true and tested. That's rewarding people for doing stuff differently.

This isn't punishing people who use cookie-cutter strats. It's rewarding people who don't.

I know what you said. That's still a punishment. You're telling people that to get the best drop rates, they have to change their team comp. I know you see it as a bonus, but a bonus for doing something can also be seen as a penalty for not doing something. Don't single me out here, you know very well that if they did this, there would be people complaining that they're forced to not play the job they want to play because what they want may not drop if they do.

I realize also that you're proposing something dynamic, where if playstyles change, what will constitute atypical will change and what will give or not give the bonus will change. It's not a terrible idea, but it will probably result in a rotation of cookie cutter builds instead of just one- Use one build til it stops giving the bonus, change the team comp, use that til it stops giving the bonus, repeat. And what if there are very few viable team comps due to a fight's mechanics? Then nobody can get the "bonus."

I don't think we should mess with drop rates or tell people what team comps to use at all. That's not what's broken here, if anything's broken at all. We're talking about a probably unnecessary balance change for one job because it was being used in certain counters in a possibly unexpected way. That's a flaw of the content itself, not the job, because it hasn't been a problem in the years leading up to this point. The content should be made by SE knowing what sorts of strategies may be possible. I realize with their low budgets these days they might not be able to test as many team comps, but this is something that should have been anticipated.

[machini]

I know what you said. That's still a punishment. You're telling people that to get the best drop rates, they have to change their team comp. I know you see it as a bonus, but a bonus for doing something can also be seen as a penalty for not doing something. Don't single me out here, you know very well that if they did this, there would be people complaining that they're forced to not play the job they want to play because what they want may not drop if they do.

I realize also that you're proposing something dynamic, where if playstyles change, what will constitute atypical will change and what will give or not give the bonus will change. It's not a terrible idea, but it will probably result in a rotation of cookie cutter builds instead of just one- Use one build til it stops giving the bonus, change the team comp, use that til it stops giving the bonus, repeat. And what if there are very few viable team comps due to a fight's mechanics? Then nobody can get the "bonus."

I don't think we should mess with drop rates or tell people what team comps to use at all. That's not what's broken here, if anything's broken at all. We're talking about a probably unnecessary balance change for one job because it was being used in certain counters in a possibly unexpected way. That's a flaw of the content itself, not the job, because it hasn't been a problem in the years leading up to this point. The content should be made by SE knowing what sorts of strategies may be possible. I realize with their low budgets these days they might not be able to test as many team comps, but this is something that should have been anticipated.

As it stand right now, very few people get to play the job they want, unless that job is PLD, COR, WHM, GEO, BST, or RNG. Throw in the occasional thief whose only purpose and reason for being there is to run in, hit the mob once, and run out.

Do you know how much new content I have done as a DNC? Vagary, Sinister Reign? Absolutely zero, I get verbal abuse for even asking if people will take a mythic dancer. Even for job point parties. Nevermind that I can put out an insane amount of damage (I've been doing job point parties for people in my LS. With just me and a single GEO, we can get 30~40 job points an hour, without COR rolls), nevermind that I have good survivability, or any myriad of other considerations. "DNC is a **** job" and I am a "**** player for playing it" and I "wasted a mythic" on a "**** job". These are all things I have heard before. I am routinely turned down for content that I can duo, or, sometimes, solo. I have no need for any more Rem's 1-5s, as I have around a hundred of each last time I check, but I'm not above joining a PUG who needs help for a N run (which I can solo) or a D run (which I can duo with a PLD or WHM), because DNC "isn't a DD job" and is a "**** job" and "loldnc".

You do understand right now that part of the reason there's a "problem" with BST is that now people very rarely want anything but BST? The vast majority of shouts for DDs I see are for BLU and BST, and BLU seems to only be useful for capacity points parties.

You might think my system is a 'penalty' -- you're wrong. What is a penalty is playing one of the roughly 15 jobs in this game that are completely useless for most content, not because they're actually useless for the content, but because no one will take them.

My system would at least provide an incentive to mix up what jobs you take occasionally, and it would reward people for doing content with the more than 7 jobs.

[Rwolf]

There has definitely been a witch hunt for BST simply because they became an overly popular job. I've heard a lot recently about "good they are a solo job" and "a pet shouldn't be out damaging me" and a bunch of other nonsensical vitriol. Where was all this rage when SE announced before any changes that they wanted pet jobs to be the top damage because of the added maintenance of a pet? I actually heard more of the playerbase being thrilled for BST.

When they announced the distance change. I was fine with being pulled into a range, but not this close. This was a really intense nerf. BST pet AI does its own thing when there are multiple targets and it is especially painful on large targets to have to be right beside the pet essentially to activate abilities.

I tried to do Legion on BST this past weekend and after a few attempts was like nope I'll jump on BLU. The size of the mobs + my pet switching aggro frequently, forcing me to chase it down or constantly mash for it to attack my current target is a bit much.

This game has gone through many bandwagon phases but BST has such an overwhelming level of toxicity behind it. I don't even see reasoning in counter arguments. Just a lot of "suck it up babies and adapt" type comments that I've never really seen behind any nerf before.

Do I think there were some adjustments to be made? Sure. But I think it was a little bit more complicated than a blanket nerf. I think as it was said, had more to do with content making players adopt safe strategies and DD balancing in general.

[Olor]

This game as gone through many bandwagon phases but BST has such an overwhelming level of toxicity behind it. I don't even see reasoning in counter arguments. Just a lot of "suck it up babies and adapt" type comments that I've never really seen behind any nerf before.

This is what I don't understand. And frankly - if I was a dev, I wouldn't be doing what people with that sort of attitude were calling for.

[Skyrant_Kangaroomouse]

I just leave this here.

[Alhanelem]

You do understand right now that part of the reason there's a "problem" with BST is that now people very rarely want anything but BST?

This doesn't even bother me that much because for years and years BST has been the black sheep of the FFXI jobiverse. Not popular, weak outside of solo, and on top of that people hated BSTS because of the power they used to have over EXP parties (dumping mobs on EXP parties they didn't like, BST armies taking a year to kill HNMs while everyone stands and watches, etc), which might have something to do with the JP reaction. BST deserved a chance to be good, but seems like as soon as people realize it can be useful, it gets crapped on. Since it went on largely unmodified without being popular for a long time, to me, it's the content that's to blame for the situation.

You might think my system is a 'penalty' -- you're wrong

No, I'm not wrong- it's subjective without any right or wrong (Think glass half empty vs glass half full). Any "bonus" can be seen as a penalty for those not getting said bonus, especially when the lack of bonus comes from the job they like to play just happening to be part of a popular strategy and not through any fault of their skill or knowledge. To me, a bonus is something that is earned for some sort of accomplishment- in most other contexts a bonus to the person that obtains it is seen as a penalty to the person who can't obtain it. There is not much accomplishment in using a team comp that is less than the most popular, as generally the popular team comp in my experience is the one that clears the content the fastest and not necessarily the one clearing it the most easily. Most fights have many viable team comps that don't get used only because they won't win as swiftly.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't think using a team comp that isn't "cookie cutter" is something that should be rewarded with better drop rates. It especially shouldn't be a bandaid for balance issues, like "oh, we know X Y and Z jobs suck for this content, so if you beat the content with it, we'll give you more stuff". Instead, they should either make the content so XYZ jobs don't suck on it, or they should fix the problem with the job that makes them suck on it.

If they implemented your suggestion, the people who main the jobs that happen to be popular for a lot of content will be upset that just becuase their job is popular, they have to take lower drop rates than people who play less common jobs.

[machini]

By definition, the baseline is the baseline. If you make 1000 dollars a month, that is your base pay. If you get bonus pay for doing something that benefits the company particularly well, that is a bonus. You are not penalized for not going above and beyond and out of your way to do something.

This is quite literally tautology, and you are wrong, please stop. You are wrong by definition, and you are even wrong by common use of the concept.