FF 5.X Alternative Raid Buff Alignment and Openers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nemekh

While improved, the SMN sequencing is still not ideal.

The 5th GCD Bahamut also having a Ruin II in the opener from the R4 following the 2nd enkindle is pretty yikes.

I'm really not sure what your goal is here advising things that are losses.

Openers here, openers on youtube. Today sure has been eventful.

---

Ah. I see what you mean. Unless you have a 15% damage buff for the final R4, it's better to just R3 and R4 to double weave the Energy Drain and Fester. Thank you for pointing this out.

So I have to ask. I actually do encourage the use of openers where raid buffs and the like come out earlier if it gains you an extra cast overall. But if you still get the same number of casts across the board regardless of buffs coming out early or late, what's the problem then? It's common knowledge that not every class's strongest moves fit in the raid alignment of early raid buff openers and I've already proven that it is possible to line up raid buffs relatively uniformly here, so what's the issue then? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxdarock

So I have to ask. I actually do encourage the use of openers where raid buffs and the like come out earlier if it gains you an extra cast overall. But if you still get the same number of casts across the board regardless of buffs coming out early or late, what's the problem then? It's common knowledge that not every class's strongest moves fit in the raid alignment of early raid buff openers and I've already proven that it is possible to line up raid buffs relatively uniformly here, so what's the issue then? :confused:

---

The issue is that you’re presenting information that is incorrect and suboptimal, and are presenting it as an “option” for optimal play, which it is not. You are also throwing around the name of The Balance and saying that you’ve spoken with theorycrafters about these openers in your document almost as a ways to legitimize what you have done, when the theorycrafters and job guide makers have already expressed that they do not condone this information, and have told you that they are incorrect and suboptimal. Not to mention, there are some roles/jobs that you consulted nobody about, and instead went with feeling as opposed to math. It’s disingenuous at best, and blatantly misleading to those who read it without additional knowledge of optimization.

If a player seeking to optimize or get into advanced play were to find your documents, and use your openers under the impression that they are viable or optimal, now you’re culpable for misleading players seeking to improve their gameplay. You lead them into forming bad habits, which they will then have to correct should someone point out “Hey, you’re doing this way wrong; that’s not how you optimal open on [job].” This could lead to frustration on both their part and the theorycrafters’/mentors’ part.

There is also no need to rearrange the current buff alignment for this new “uniformity”. Do you think the current theorycrafters did not pool their research and numbers to find the most optimal way to align raid buffs while also not costing jobs personal damage output? They’ve already figured the optimal way to do things—why change it or challenge it with something that is not optimal? What’s the issue with following what’s already established? Not everything needs to be changed/overhauled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

snip

---

I'm just giving credit where it's due. I did talk to mentors and they helped me understand the peculiarities of each job, which led me to this alignment instead of the one from three months ago. They made guides and simulators which I looked over to get an understanding of each classes rotation to a certain extent. That said, they did not have a direct hand in making this list or endorsing it, and I stated as such in the disclaimer (which, not surprisingly, most people gloss over).

I just curious as to why people believe these are terribly subpar, especially in a situation that gives you the same number of casts whether you use raid buffs as soon as possible or delay them a bit. Here's what each class is using in this alignment, at 15 secs:

NIN: It's whole TA window, which contains most of it's strongest GCDs (1 Hyosho Ranryu, 2 Raitons, 1 Fuma-Raiton-Suiton TCJ, and ShadowFang) and almost all it's oGCDs (2 hits of Bunshin, DwD, Assassinate, and one Bhava (possibly two depending on how late TA is used).
DRG: Everything from a LS Full Thrust to the second Chaos Thrust. (It still retains the use of all the oGCDs even in the early raid buff opener).
MNK:
-Anatman Opener: If Anatman opener is delayed by 1 GCD (unfortunately), then everything from the 1 Boot to the second Demo falls under raid buffs.
-TK opener: The 15 sec raid buffs should hit everything from the first Boot to the last True, with Litany and Voice possibly reaching TK RoF is used around the same time as those buffs.
SAM: It fits Midare, Tsubame (basically the second Midare), Higanbana, Senei, and Shoha within 15 sec raid buffs whether they come out at 10 or 15secs.
DNC: The second Standard Step, Saber Dance procs, and a majority of Flourish moves all fit within raid buffs (though the more SDs you get, the more procs get pushed out, though since the only way to exceed SD's damage is to use FF/BS+FD1+FD3, the latter two being proc based, I don't see the problem with this so long as you don't lose a Flourish proc).
BRD: Pushes back the refresh of IJ, so more dot ticks from the first two Dots (can't say anything on the WM timings since that's proc based).
MCH: Fits hypercharge window, Drill, and HCS, as well as 6 (possibly seven) casts of both GR and Ricochet.
BLM: Fits 2 F4s, 2 Despairs, and 1 Thundercloud with Litany and Voice possibly reaching Xeno.
SMN: Fits all for R4s, 2 Festers, 2 Enkindle Baha, and 6 WWs (possibly the DeathFlare, but not sure on that one).
RDM: The entire melee combo, CaC, Displace, VerFlare, Scorch, Verfire, VerAero, Fleche, and possibly Jolt 2 (possibly Verstone if it procs). 8th GCD Embolden also provides a bigger boost to the melee combo, VerFlare, and Scorch, all of which are also buffed by Manafication.
PLD:
-FoF opener: Fits in 2 Atones, 2 Intervenes, a Goring combo, CoS, Requiescat, and 1 HS.
-Req opener: Fits Confeti, a gore combo, an extra FB and RB, 2 intervenes, and CoS.
WAR: Fits 2 ICs and 5 FCs under IR, as well as Onslaught and Upheave.
DRK: Fits nearly all of the LS's attacks, 5 Bloodspillers, 4 EoS without MP overcapping, AD, Salted, and Plunge (if you double weave it at least.)
GNB: Their entire Gnashing combo, as well as Sonic Break, at least 2 Burst strikes, 2 plunges, and an extra BZ.
WHM: The use of PoM allows for 3 Glares, plus a Dia, which is refreshed later while still managing to catch raid buffs.
AST: Isn't as frantic to play 3 cards before Div, doesn't waste a GCD of Lightspeed, and delays the refresh of Combust while still catching raid buffs.
SCH: Fits 4 Energy drains and refreshes Bio later with both casts catching the Pot window.

Admittedly, there are probably discrepancies in the timings, but this is the general goal. So again, if the number of casts is the same regardless of using buffs early or not, what makes the goal of a delayed alignment so subpar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxdarock

Admittedly, there are probably discrepancies in the timings, but this is the general goal. So again, if the number of casts is the same regardless of using buffs early or not, what makes the goal of a delayed alignment so subpar?

---

Because you never, under any circumstances, delay your buffs in your opening burst. There is no inherent reason to sit on damage for the first 15 seconds of the fight, and there has never been a scenario where players hold their bursts for 15 seconds. The sooner you get bursts out, the sooner your burst will come up to be used again. Buff alignment gets manipulated during a fight—be it in the middle or the end—not at the beginning.



You are still incorrect with DNC—again not counting for the fact that you’ve delayed Flourish in both of your proposed openers by a significant amount of seconds, thereby wasting your Technical Finish burst window on unnecessary, random proc chances because you want to Cascade > Fountain immediately after your opening Standard Finish as opposed to setting up Technical Finish immediately (which, in and of itself, reduces any sort of delays on your major damage dealing skills during your only burst window because you won’t have random Reverse Cascade/Fountainfall procs that you don’t want to overwrite). The optimal opener includes all Flourished procs, all Saber Dance procs, and the Standard Finish within the TF time frame without pushing any of them outside of the buff window in the opener. Your openers, by comparison will likely push your Flourished procs out of the burst window, meaning lost damage because they will not be buffed by Technical Finish’s +5% straight damage. I’ve already explained this to you—you do understand the concept of losing damage, yes? By losing damage, that makes your proposed openers subpar. An optimal opener wouldn’t result in unnecessary losses of damage, or of important skills falling outside of your major burst window.

Here is the optimal DNC opener for you to see what it looks like:
Pre-pull Standard Step (-15 seconds) > Pot (-2 seconds) > Standard Finish (pull) > begin Technical Step > Technical Finish > Flourish > Rising Windmill (pushes stronger procs into other burst windows, such as Trick Attack) > FD3 weave > priority based off of Saber Dance > Standard Finish > Fountainfall/Bloodshower > Reverse Cascade, and using feather procs as they appear.

You do not delay Technical Finish for a Cascade > Fountain combo. The removal of the 1-2 combo means the removal of Reverse Cascade/Fountainfall proc chances, which removes the unnecessary Flourish delay during TF, which ensures that all of your burst (including all Flourished procs) fall within the 20 second window of Technical Finish.

The only deviation from this opener is if you have Dance Partner’d a DRG, in which you weave in Devilment BEFORE you start Technical Finish because it compliments the DRG’s burst better. This is the only deviation, as NIN no longer calls for it since the changes. You do not, however, change when and where Techincal Finish is used. It is only delayed when mechanics call for it (such as the party being too spread out during certain phases: you wait until everyone’s gathered to deploy it), or if you are aiming for a kill time in which you end the fight with a burst window (like E4S: kill times at ~12:30 call for use of Technical at 12 mins so that the party ends the fight while bursting, thereby gaining a higher parse).


By the way, this disclaimer is misleading:

Quote:

---

Again, I’d like to stress that by no means does this list claim that all the openers listed here are optimal for every encounter.

---

These openers are not optimal for any encounter, as you do not delay raid buffs in your opener. Your guide can easily mislead, which is probably why so many people are against it. I’m against it for that reason, and because it is more a push of your personal agenda regarding the viability of Tornado Kick usage. I’m sorry—your resolve to prove TK is viable can be argued as admirable—but you should never change the way jobs function or burst to fit in and optimize a single skill like Tornado Kick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxdarock

Admittedly, there are probably discrepancies in the timings, but this is the general goal. So again, if the number of casts is the same regardless of using buffs early or not, what makes the goal of a delayed alignment so subpar?

---

The fact you have to ask this speaks volumes on why you aren't qualify to theorycraft. Delaying buffs without rhyme or reason is a net loss. Earlier you claim delaying buffs comes down to if you'll lose a usage. While true to an extent, your delays on Dragoon work against it. You aren't buffing the strongest ability in our wheel house, and needlessly delaying all our oGCDs. I actually tested your rotation on a dummy compared to the actual Dragoon rotation and the differences are staggering. Simply retaining the oGCDs doesn't account for the fact you're delaying them with absolutely no benefit. Chaos Thrust is stronger than Full Thrust by a whooping 160 potency due to the DoT. Holding buffs for the weaker ability results in a loss no matter how you slice it. And the results don't lie.

These aren't alternative openers. They're simply inferior guesswork with zero purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

Because you never, under any circumstances, delay your buffs in your opening burst. There is no inherent reason to sit on damage for the first 15 seconds of the fight, and there has never been a scenario where players hold their bursts for 15 seconds. The sooner you get bursts out, the sooner your burst will come up to be used again. Buff alignment gets manipulated during a fight—be it in the middle or the end—not at the beginning.

---

I'm not sure what's up with this absolute mindset that there's no reason to ever delay raid buffs, especially when you can ask the question, "What reason is there to use raid buffs early?" to which the answer would be in order to get an extra cast of an ability in overall, due to kill times and/or fight mechanics. Then you say that it's find to hold all buffs at the end, which seems to go against that. In fact, it literally seems to be the same as what I'm proposing here with lining buffs up in the beginnings. What about fights like E2S, which has no downtime? In a speed run where you have a general idea of the kill time, sure, maybe using all buffs early makes sense and get you an extra cast. But when the amount of time most buffs are held is 3 GCDs, how often is that gonna happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

You are still incorrect with DNC—again not counting for the fact that you’ve delayed Flourish in both of your proposed openers by a significant amount of seconds, thereby wasting your Technical Finish burst window on unnecessary, random proc chances because you want to Cascade > Fountain immediately after your opening Standard Finish as opposed to setting up Technical Finish immediately (which, in and of itself, reduces any sort of delays on your major damage dealing skills during your only burst window because you won’t have random Reverse Cascade/Fountainfall procs that you don’t want to overwrite). The optimal opener includes all Flourished procs, all Saber Dance procs, and the Standard Finish within the TF time frame without pushing any of them outside of the buff window in the opener. Your openers, by comparison will likely push your Flourished procs out of the burst window, meaning lost damage because they will not be buffed by Technical Finish’s +5% straight damage. I’ve already explained this to you—you do understand the concept of losing damage, yes? By losing damage, that makes your proposed openers subpar. An optimal opener wouldn’t result in unnecessary losses of damage, or of important skills falling outside of your major burst window.

---

I'm sorry, but it's still not sinking in. Everything within the Tech Finish window is no less than 300 potency for every move, yet you're insistent that this is a definite loss? How? Aside from the first Fountain, everything else in the TF window is a Flourish proc. So long as the two 350 GCDs make it within TF, you're just moving two 300 potency GCDs down the rotation. You don't lose any potency. And if even the 350 potency GCDs get pushed out, that's most likely because you get a lot of SD procs, which take priority with TF over Flourish procs and is actually a good thing. Some I'm at a complete loss when you say that not using all the procs gained by Flourish within TF due to random procs of Cascade -> Fountain and or SD procs is an absolute loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

The fact you have to ask this speaks volumes on why you aren't qualify to theorycraft. Delaying buffs without rhyme or reason is a net loss. Earlier you claim delaying buffs comes down to if you'll lose a usage. While true to an extent, your delays on Dragoon work against it. You aren't buffing the strongest ability in our wheel house, and needlessly delaying all our oGCDs. I actually tested your rotation on a dummy compared to the actual Dragoon rotation and the differences are staggering. Simply retaining the oGCDs doesn't account for the fact you're delaying them with absolutely no benefit. Chaos Thrust is stronger than Full Thrust by a whooping 160 potency due to the DoT. Holding buffs for the weaker ability results in a loss no matter how you slice it. And the results don't lie.

These aren't alternative openers. They're simply inferior guesswork with zero purpose.

---

I like how you skipped the list of abilities that are supposed to fit within all raid buffs and went straight to end. I know my reason behind this alignment and creating this list. I'm asking for a reason everyone else believes this is completely subpar. I've already stated several times that if early raid buff openers gain you an extra cast overall, then go with those. It's interesting because it's commonly accepted to delay raid buffs towards the end of an encounter apparently, which is the exact same reasoning behind this raid alignment for the opener. So aside from that, what's the reasoning people seem to see that I don't?

As for your DRG test, I place Battle Litany right before Raiden Thrust. It's a 20 second buff, so you should fit in 8 GCDs. How are you not fitting in the second Chaos Thrust? And you stay it's staggeringly different lower, but by what criteria is this going by and are you doing the rotation correctly? I can say for a fact that if you save LotD for the third GsK, if you start Life with StarDiver, you're going to miss the third Nastrond as it comes off CD right before FT, which is when you'd use LS and LC again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxdarock

I like how you skipped the list of abilities that are supposed to fit within all raid buffs and went straight to end. I know my reason behind this alignment and creating this list. I'm asking for a reason everyone else believes this is completely subpar. I've already stated several times that if early raid buff openers gain you an extra cast overall, then go with those. It's interesting because it's commonly accepted to delay raid buffs towards the end of an encounter apparently, which is the exact same reasoning behind this raid alignment for the opener. So aside from that, what's the reasoning people seem to see that I don't?

As for your DRG test, I place Battle Litany right before Raiden Thrust. It's a 20 second buff, so you should fit in 8 GCDs. How are you not fitting in the second Chaos Thrust? And you stay it's staggeringly different lower, but by what criteria is this going by and are you doing the rotation correctly? I can say for a fact that if you save LotD for the third GsK, if you start Life with StarDiver, you're going to miss the third Nastrond as it comes off CD right before FT, which is when you'd use LS and LC again.

---

Because your alignments are irrelevant. Not only do they hinge on every job following these sub-par openers, they're a loss for the job themselves. The issue is you keep claiming these are an alternative—implying they have some legitimacy—when that is objectively wrong. You have zero statistics supporting your claims; have been told by several people spanning various skill levels and knowledge your assessments are wrong, but you keep presenting these openers as an option. It isn't about simply gaining an extra cast. Your openers are flat out bad. As for delaying buffs, this is done to align with pots not simply on a whim. Ideally, you want 3 minute buffs like Litany to line up with 60/120s buffs. In the event you know you won't get a four use, holding it until an agreed point in the fight is a net gain. Doing so randomly in the opener, is not.

With that in mind. I wasn't talking about the second Chaos Thrust but the first. Delaying Litany in the manner you do means it will fall off at Chaos Thrust. Therefore, you buffed Raiden Thrust and Disembowel instead of Fang and Wheeling—essentially trading 820 potency for 650. The same applies to Lance Charge and Dragon Sight buffing weaker potency GCDs for no reason. Furthermore, you loss >10s on Hi-Jump; more on Spineshatter and Dragonfire. In fights with several down periods like E1S, E3S and E4S, this will cost you a Hi-Jump—a massive loss. In regards to LotD, delaying it beyond your third Geirskogul means you'll either be sitting on it, which is bad, or you'll miss a Nastrond under buffs, which is worse.

That criteria is going by the math you continuously dismiss. And yes, I did your rotation just fine. It's noticeably inferior to the standard Dragoon rotations found on Balance by people with far more qualifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxdarock

I just curious as to why people believe these are terribly subpar, especially in a situation that gives you the same number of casts whether you use raid buffs as soon as possible or delay them a bit.

---

I will reiterate my previous post:

1) The current openers listed on Balance are already optimized to push out maximum DPS under raid buffs. The mathematicians on Balance 100% consulted mentors for every job and bounced back and forth when building their openers so that not only does their own job do as much DPS as possible within that window, but also other jobs can push out maximum DPS under their windows using the buffs your job provides (unless you're a tank/SAM/BLM/WHM)

2) Delaying buff windows at the beginning of a fight is never optimal. The ONLY way I could see it being that way is if the boss became untargetable after like 3 GCDs which will never happen (I hope). Delaying buff windows is something you do at later stages of the fight to optimize your kill time and that optimization also depends on how quickly you can kill the boss. In my last post I used Voidwalker as an example and went with a 9:17 or so kill time and in a situation like that you'd delay the 2 minute buffs at the 8 minute mark to align with the 3 minute windows at the 9 minute mark so everyone is ending the fight on maximum buffs to push their DPS just a little further. Other examples become in a fight like Eden Prime where the 3 minute windows come up during add phase, so you'd hold those buffs for when Eden comes back and everyone just does a re-opener. tl;dr never, ever, ever, ever, ever delay openers it is not and will never be optimal.

You also make blatantly poor choices.

The primary issue with your nin opener for example is the pot. You insist on intentionally full clipping post suiton to get it off so our trick comes out at 15, but this causes problems because not only have you lost us half a gcd, but youve potted in such a way that the pot misses some stronger moves at the end. That pot cut costs us about 150 potency.
(Starts at .7 lasts 1.2 and cant be qued so latency adds its about 1/3rd gcd loss)
The extra bhava you 'might' get in trick gives 15 extra potency, but you lose 7.5 from not gettin aeolian in trick for sure AND you overcap raiton no matter what you do which is another loss of at least 100 potency (you overcap it by at least 2.5 seconds even after you changed it based on my last few posts)

Additionally performing the trick attack at 15 seconds forces trick to catch weaker gcds. Which is another potency loss.

Plus what everyone else is already saying. Delaying further is not optimal. It means that later rotational mess ups may cost a player more if anything.

This isnt even mentioning the doton ticks lost as well. Which btw i confirmed are effected by trick

That additionally i meant on later tricks. Which is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZyrinMisharuji

snip

---

To answer you points:

1) I will not deny that the Balance makes optimal openers, however with the people I talked to (I guess it's pretty much known that it was the mentors at this point), the concept of holding raid buffs seemed alien to nearly everyone. This leads me to believe that all the openers were made under the rule of using all buffs and bursts as early as possible and that the concept of holding raid buffs and allowing each class to get more of their bigger hits in the most buffs for a longer period of time wasn't really explored.

I'll repeat it again: I do very much encourage the use of early raid buff openers in fights where doing so will gain you an extra cast or prevent you from losing one. Case in point, for E3S, I believe the GNB opener starts its Gnashing combo on the 3rd GCD, much earlier than the usual openers, simply because doing so ensures that a Gnashing combo isn't lost due to Maelstrom. This fact alone makes it stronger overall in E3S (and in a vacuum). However, while it's possible for GNB to do this and follows the rule of "using burst phases as soon as possible", you usually wouldn't in other fights because the bulk of Gnashing misses a lot of raid buffs and using it 3 GCDs earlier probably won't gain you an extra usage of a Gnashing combo overall. This is the best example of my point where "if you can get the same number of casts off whether they're used early or not, then what's wrong with lining them up in a way that every class can make the most use of them?" I even gave a list on page 5 of this thread detailing the GCDs and oGCDs this alignment aims to fit in around 15secs.

2) Again, you say it's never optimal, but you don't really give a clear reason why. As for the example you give, the classes using the 2 minute raid buffs can only hold it for so long, otherwise they'll miss out on a duration of their buffs, which is what happens to all the other classes (now including NIN) regardless of how early their buffs are used in the opener. Even for DRG, which has the earliest raid buff usages in early raid openers, because you still lose out on a duration of their buffs by the end, you have to ask if that's really considered an extra cast. Also, while this might be fine for a speed run, in which you'd reset whenever someone dies, in a regular run where clearing is the goal, as soon as someone dies, that estimated kill time goes right out the window, making the possibility of retaining casts despite delaying raid buffs even higher.

Also, aside from DRG, most of the openers I list delay raid buffs and burst phases no more than 3 GCDs, so how likely are you to lose a cast in a full uptime fight like E2S?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

You also make blatantly poor choices.

The primary issue with your nin opener for example is the pot. You insist on intentionally full clipping post suiton to get it off so our trick comes out at 15, but this causes problems because not only have you lost us half a gcd, but youve potted in such a way that the pot misses some stronger moves at the end. That pot cut costs us about 150 potency.
(Starts at .7 lasts 1.2 and cant be qued so latency adds its about 1/3rd gcd loss)
The extra bhava you 'might' get in trick gives 15 extra potency, but you lose 7.5 from not gettin aeolian in trick for sure AND you overcap raiton no matter what you do which is another loss of at least 100 potency (you overcap it by at least 2.5 seconds even after you changed it based on my last few posts)

Additionally performing the trick attack at 15 seconds forces trick to catch weaker gcds. Which is another potency loss.

Plus what everyone else is already saying. Delaying further is not optimal. It means that later rotational mess ups may cost a player more if anything.

This isnt even mentioning the doton ticks lost as well. Which btw i confirmed are effected by trick

---

As you said, if you get Aeo in TA it's 7.5 potency gain, but since TA is a raid buff, you then have to see how that affects other classes and if even it generates losses greater than the gain for NIN, it's a loss overall (unless you're intention is maximum NIN potency, in which case, go for it.)

As for these very particular potency losses based on clipping and over-capping by 1 GCD (I'm not even sure how this is calculated since it really depends on whether that 2.5 GCD costs you a mudra use or not), while that might be very bad in a simulator, you have to remember that Critical and Direct hits do exist. If you get a lucky crit on a high potency move, very frequent direct hits, or any combinations of these over the course of a fight, that loss in potency is very minor. And again, unless person NIN dps is the goal, you then have to look at how it affects the other classes in the party. If clipping the pot allows TA to line up better with other classes' rotation, the gain can collectively make up for that 150 potency loss (which again, I fundamentally don't understand how people can calculate that or why it would be considered a gamebreaker since I only suggest doing so once.)

PLD:
-FoF opener: Fits in 2 Atones, 2 Intervenes, a Goring combo, CoS, Requiescat, and 1 HS.
-Req opener: Fits Confeti, a gore combo, an extra FB and RB, 2 intervenes, and CoS.


This makes me want to cry. FoF opener is all messed up. FoF has no effect of HS whatsoever. you shouldn't have FoF up when Req is up EVER. CoS shouldn't be used before FoF as you're just leaving potency on the table. also you can get all 3 atonements into you first FoF + 2 goring combos, a RA combo, and the last tick of FoF should be the activation of req. You first req window can contain all 4 HS with the confi finisher. After that it changes slightly to accommodate a 60s rotation. It all just hurts. This is not an alternate opener and will only cause confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabora_Makingai

PLD:
-FoF opener: Fits in 2 Atones, 2 Intervenes, a Goring combo, CoS, Requiescat, and 1 HS.
-Req opener: Fits Confeti, a gore combo, an extra FB and RB, 2 intervenes, and CoS.


This makes me want to cry. FoF opener is all messed up. FoF has no effect of HS whatsoever. you shouldn't have FoF up when Req is up EVER. CoS shouldn't be used before FoF as you're just leaving potency on the table. also you can get all 3 atonements into you first FoF + 2 goring combos, a RA combo, and the last tick of FoF should be the activation of req. You first req window can contain all 4 HS with the confi finisher. After that it changes slightly to accommodate a 60s rotation. It all just hurts. This is not an alternate opener and will only cause confusion.

---

I like how you have a problem with the PLD openers, even though they're pretty much the exact same as what people currently use, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxdarock

snip

---

To reply to your points in order:

1) I don't think anyone truly believes you talked to mentors from Balance to make this doc. If you discussed it with them you could credit them for having given you insight into all of the jobs in the game for you to then use that information to create this document.

To the next point. We aren't using buffs "early" we're using them when it's optimal and where we get the most burst out of them without holding them forever, for example, you're expecting WARs to use 8th GCD IR which is just awful, especially if they don't have NIN/MNK in their group (and if they have MNK your openers would still put Brotherhood out at the 5th GCD meaning IR now misaligns for Brotherhood which is the only buff that perfectly aligns with IR, and IR is 1110 potency more than 2 Inner Chaos uses, and that's without factoring in Onslaught and Upheaval and the autos you get under it). To your point of GNB using Gnashing earlier, that kind of doesn't matter. I don't say it as like "Tank optimization doesn't matter" I mean that the things tanks do to optimize their damage doesn't affect the raid because they aren't putting out raid buffs. So PLD dropping an Atonement after their req window to ensure they go into Maelstrom with a stronger combo doesn't affect the raid at all, it's a personal optimization to mitigate lost uptime.

2) I'm actually going to do a counter question. What actual benefit does delaying the openers give? Currently going through every opener I can for the jobs I have a role for in Balance, every job using the openers in Balance hit their most important/highest damaging skills under raid buffs. Battle Lit, used on 3rd GCD, covers all of DRG's highest potency moves while also ensuring the raid gets everything they want under those windows. A lot of what I see on your list would make jobs lose potency under your suggested buffs and I'm inclined to believe that my thought is correct considering how many people have come and explained and shown proof of how they lose potency under your suggested alignment (even more so when the people telling you that your suggested alignment is a DPS loss are people that I know are mentors on Balance).

But to answer your point, and this is mostly my feelings on it, for openers: The earlier you can do them without screwing people out of DPS means that you can push all of your damage out before you have to deal with mechanics. For something like DRG which has the most animation locks of any job, if it delays its buffs then tries to fit everything under those same buffs it may end up ani locking itself during a mechanic and get hit by something (for e2s do you know how feels bad it would be to use High Jump or something and get snapshotted by the adds and get damage down plus a vuln? Just because you were pressured to press them later than what is optimal so you could catch them under buffs, not worth it man). Again, that's just how I feel about it. The earlier you get through your burst, the more you can focus on mechanics. Additionally, the earlier you can use your buffs later in the fight. Your suggestion requires people to not only clear fights, but to also be completely BiS and have a set group that will never change so your kill times are more or less always the same, which just isn't true for people without a static and even people with a static, most people that care about rotational optimization and numbers will try to kill bosses faster and faster every time they do them, so your delayed alignment potentially loses uses far moreso than using them as Balance suggests, which is the earliest possible without screwing everyone else out of DPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZyrinMisharuji

To reply to your points in order:

1) I don't think anyone truly believes you talked to mentors from Balance to make this doc. If you discussed it with them you could credit them for having given you insight into all of the jobs in the game for you to then use that information to create this document.

To the next point. We aren't using buffs "early" we're using them when it's optimal and where we get the most burst out of them without holding them forever, for example, you're expecting WARs to use 8th GCD IR which is just awful, especially if they don't have NIN/MNK in their group (and if they have MNK your openers would still put Brotherhood out at the 5th GCD meaning IR now misaligns for Brotherhood which is the only buff that perfectly aligns with IR, and IR is 1110 potency more than 2 Inner Chaos uses, and that's without factoring in Onslaught and Upheaval and the autos you get under it). To your point of GNB using Gnashing earlier, that kind of doesn't matter. I don't say it as like "Tank optimization doesn't matter" I mean that the things tanks do to optimize their damage doesn't affect the raid because they aren't putting out raid buffs. So PLD dropping an Atonement after their req window to ensure they go into Maelstrom with a stronger combo doesn't affect the raid at all, it's a personal optimization to mitigate lost uptime.

2) I'm actually going to do a counter question. What actual benefit does delaying the openers give? Currently going through every opener I can for the jobs I have a role for in Balance, every job using the openers in Balance hit their most important/highest damaging skills under raid buffs. Battle Lit, used on 3rd GCD, covers all of DRG's highest potency moves while also ensuring the raid gets everything they want under those windows. A lot of what I see on your list would make jobs lose potency under your suggested buffs and I'm inclined to believe that my thought is correct considering how many people have come and explained and shown proof of how they lose potency under your suggested alignment (even more so when the people telling you that your suggested alignment is a DPS loss are people that I know are mentors on Balance).

---

To reply to your points in order:

1) I did talk to mentors, but several didn't want me name dropping them and being associated with this list's creation, so I kept it ambiguous and just mentioned my appreciation that they took the time to talk to me, and for the guides and simulators they made.

2) Let’s talk about your example of WAR and MNK (and NIN). For starters, I'm surprised you said that both MNK openers were bad, even though one is the exact same Anatman opener as before and the PB opener the Balance has up has BH come out 1 GCD later, so you're really admitting that even those openers have holes. Now, keep in mind that when you calculate the timestamp for weaponskills vs spells, the attack goes out quicker for the former than the latter. As a basic example using a cast/recast of 2.5 seconds, when calculating when the attacks go out for weaponskills vs spells, the former will hit at 0 and 2.5secs while the latter will hit at 2.5 and 5secs.

Now, let's look at the theoretical timestamp for WARs GCDs, and to disprove your comment about me implying that groups should always be BiS gear for the openers I’ve proposed to work (which I'll talk about later), we'll use a GCD of 2.42 secs (I'll make mention of the oGCDs, but won't give timestamps for them). The way people currently use the WAR opener, the theoretical time stamp looks like this:

Toma (0secs) -> Infuriate -> HS (2.42secs) -> Maim (4.84secs) -> SE (7.26secs) -> IC (9.68secs) -> Infuriate -> IC (12.1secs) -> IR -> FC (14.52secs) -> Upheaveal -> FC (16.94secs) -> Onslaught -> FC (19.36secs) -> FC (21.78secs) -> FC - (24.2secs) -> HS (26.62secs) -> Maim (29.04secs) -> SE (31.46secs)

So an 8sec TA is actually pretty good with this opener, since it'll catch 2 ICs and 4 FCs under IRl. However, it's not so good for MNK. Let's look at MNK's GCD rotation using an Anatman opener that doesn't clip and cost you a full GCD (keep in mind that the first ST has about a 1 sec animation lock and it takes about half a sec or so for BH to be applied). For this, I'm going to use my own GCD of 2.44 (no GL), 2.32 (GL1), and 2.2 (GL2. I’m not suggesting that other people use the same gear as I do though, as substat calculation is behind what I can accurately calculate with simple math). I’ll also be stopping at the first Boot, since the point I’m trying to make is when BH comes out (an also when GL3’s GCD is applied). So, here’s how it looks:

ST (0secs) -> Demo (1sec) -> Anatman (3.42secs) -> DK (5.74secs) -> Twin (8.06secs) -> RoF -> Demo (10.14) -> FC -> BH (This is done so that BH extends to the second Demo) -> Boot (13-ish secs give or take due to BH clip)

So BH takes between about 13 secs to come out if Anatman doesn’t cause you to lose a GCD and about 15 secs if it does, so it still works for the raid alignment I’ve presented more or less. As you can see, it’s only either hitting the FCs in IR and HS or four FCs, a HS, and a Maim.

Now let's looks at what the GCD line-up looks like for a 10th GCD IR opener:

Toma (0secs) -> Infuriate -> HS (2.42secs) -> Maim (4.84secs) -> SE (7.26secs) -> HS (9.68secs) -> Maim (12.1secs) -> SP (14.52secs) -> IC (16.94secs) -> Infuriate -> IC (19.36secs) -> IR ->FC (21.78secs) -> Upheaval -> FC - (24.2secs) -> Onslaught -> FC (26.62secs) -> FC (29.04secs) -> FC (31.46secs)

So if BH comes out at around 13secs, it’ll catch SP, both ICs, and 3 FCs in IR and if it comes out around 15secs, it’ll catch both ICs and 4 FCs. So even in the worse case scenario, BH still catches stronger GCDs in a 10th GCD IR window than an 7th (or 6th) GCD window.

Now, let’s see what the damage looks like when you account for raid buffs. We’ll compare a 7th GCD IR with TA around 8secs and BH around 13secs to a 10th GCD IR window with both TA and BH coming out around 15secs. We’ll use a crit multiplier of 50% (1.5) and use a direct crit multiplier of 75%. Keep in mind the way multipliers are calculated: SE + TA = 1.15, SE + BH = 1.16, and SE + TA + BH = 1.21.

7th GCD IR (TA: 8secs, BH: 13ish secs)
Toma (140) + HS (200) + Maim (300) + SE (380) + IC (1849.2) + IC (1949.2) + FC (1250.8) + FC (1250.8) + FC (1250.8) + FC (1250.8) + FC + (1197.7) + HS (232) -> Maim (330) + SE (418) = 11899.3 potency

10th GCD IR (TA: 15secs, BH: 15ish secs)

Toma (140) + HS (200) + Maim (300) + SE (380) + HS (220) + Maim (330) + SP (418) + FC (1950.4) + FC (1950.4) + FC (1250.8) + FC + (1250.8) + FC (1250.8) -> FC (1250.8) + FC (1250.8) + FC (1138.7 = 12030.7 potency

Now again, if using 7th (or 6th) GCD IR gains you an extra use/keeps you from losing a use of IR overall, then go with that. However, if it doesn’t, then when you compare the openers plus raid buffs, using a 10th GCD IR puts you ahead by about 131.4 based on the GCDs alone.

Since this reply is already crazy long, I’ll address the point about DRG in another reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxdarock

Snip

---

First of all, at no point in my post did I say the MNK opener was bad. I said your WAR opener is bad, especially when they have a MNK/NIN in their comp.

Now, to address your misunderstandings about the buff alignment - With the current WAR optimal opener (with comfy levels of SkS which they recommend which puts WAR at 2.38 recast, not 2.42, they hit their 1st IC at ~9.52 seconds into a pull. This puts it under the effects of TA. It's 2nd IC comes out at ~11.9 and they begin their IR window at ~14.28 and finish that window at ~24.28. With TA going out ~8 seconds this means it ends at ~23 seconds. Brotherhood out at 13 seconds means it ends at ~27 seconds. So, taking this into account WAR with the optimal Balance opener hits both ICs under TA along with all except its final FC under IR under Trick (might be able to be fit depending on how late into the GCD Trick is, latency, etc but I digress) and fits Heavy Swing under BH.

Now to show some math.
{Note: I am not looking at any potency before the buff window because this is a thread about buff alignment and if it's worth to hold}

Balance - 920(2) x 1.1(SE) x 1.05(TA) = 2125.2 + (590x5 + 450 + 100)1.1 x 1.05 x 1.05(BH) = 6369.83 + 200(HS) x 1.1 x 1.05(BH) = 6600.83

Yours - 920(2) x 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.05 = 2231.46 + (590x5 + 450 + 100)1.1 x 1.05 x 1.05 = 6476.09
{I went with a perfect scenario for both where both get all 5 cleaves under buffs just to kinda show the best they could be within these conditions. Also for yours since you showed TA and BH as 15ish seconds, that's the timing I went with. Even if BH comes out closer to 13 it becomes even more of a DPS loss for you as you would guarantee a loss of FC under BH and FC at 590 potency is way more worth inside the window than SP at 380 potency.)

Your suggested opener loses people 124 - 191 potency under just BH and TA. This is because in your opener, assuming TA and BH go out at 15 seconds as you say, you don't have any GCDs buffed after IR ends. This means that the Balance way gives you 1 extra GCD under BH than your method which pushes it 100 potency ahead even though your method is ahead by ~106 within the buff window by the time IR hits. Both methods get the same potency within the IR window, so your method is still ~106 ahead. The end of the window occurs and you have nothing else buffed by BH, but Balance method has HS buffed by BH which gains it ~231 potency. This puts it ~125 potency ahead of your method.

Again, I do not care about the GCDs before or after the buff windows end as they are not affected by the buff windows. I sincerely hope this proves to you that your method is flawed and results in DPS loses for everyone involved. On top of that, it pushes the buff windows further back which gets perpetuated whenever downtime occurs and you're forced to hold buffs until afterwards which pushes them further back and risks losing uses. Once again: Delaying windows is an end-of-fight optimization, not a beginning-of-fight optimization. Also to the point of everyone needing to be BiS - Your method does require everyone to be in augmented tome and raid gear. If people try to prog using these suggestions they will 100% lose uses of buffs throughout the fight and for their reclears until they are BiS and even when they're BiS they risk losing uses because some people may just have a really top tier day where they don't mess up their rotation a single time or they get super lucky and direct crit everything in their opener and jump 5k DPS higher than their norm, etc, etc. The earlier you use buffs, the less likely you are to lose uses in a fight and also it affords you wiggle room to optimize buff alignment towards the end of a fight when you want to kill the boss under buff windows to pad DPS numbers a bit.

I'm not a theorycraft whiz kid, I trust the Balance for that quite well. But what my normie eyes did notice is that some (maybe all but I'm not sure) encounters have "mechanics downtime" that fit perfectly with the CD reset of most buffs.
Like in O10S and its goddamn dives, yet it allowed a big burst during the Arcane Bulwark thingy where there isn't much to do (tanking, healing and mechanics wise) because most CDs would reset at that time. I kind of remember that on Chaos too.

So my point is that if you delay buffs in openers, you might hit a buff CD reset in the middle of a mechanic that's not so burst friendly. That's why "the sooner the better" is a good practice I think.

Edit: Actually everything regarding DNC by others is well explained. There is just one "rotation" (more like sequence in the case of DNC) that works and nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxdarock

I like how you have a problem with the PLD openers, even though they're pretty much the exact same as what people currently use, lol.

---

"Pretty much the same" doesnt count though...Its not optimal and since PLD doent have any huge burst windows (but consistent damage) it relies so much more on timing its buffs with party buffs to get the most out of their abilities.

Look, I cant talk for other jobs because I dont raid with them or know them well enough to nit pick the openers, but I do know PLD. With your opener it seems like youre confusing "could" with "should". Sure your COULD do the opener you mentioned, but that doesnt mean you SHOULD. I can only tell you that if I saw a PLD using that rotation when trying to do savage, I would assume they dont know how to play the job and nope TF out of that party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasikko

Edit: Actually everything regarding DNC by others is well explained. There is just one "rotation" (more like sequence in the case of DNC) that works and nothing else.

---

There’s technically 2—if you’ve partnered a DRG, you Devilment after your on-the-pull Standard Finish right before you begin Technical Step. But that’s the only deviation from the standard opener.

With these, Flourish is delayed so much that you risk misaligning it with your Technical Finish burst entirely. In the scenario of the second opener, one Saber Dance proc before you blow the two random Reverse Cascade and Fountainfall procs from the opening Cascade > Fountain sequence pushes Flourish’s use to roughly 15 seconds into your Technical Finish window. If an odd-number Flourish is delayed by even 1 GCD (odd-numbered Flourishes are the ones between TF windows), you’ve basically pushed its use to 17~18 seconds into your burst. A second 1 GCD delay pushes Flourish out of your burst window entirely.

OP’s lack of understanding of this proves he doesn’t understand the basics of optimizing the job, or how detrimental his desire to Cascade > Fountain before Technical can hurt the job’s alignment and burst. I just hope prospective DNCs ignore these “options”—because, at the end of the day, there are very few “options” for mathematically optimal openers. This game is extremely rigid in terms of what’s mathematically the best and what’s mathematically subpar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

There’s technically 2—if you’ve partnered a DRG, you Devilment after your on-the-pull Standard Finish right before you begin Technical Step. But that’s the only deviation from the standard opener.

With these, Flourish is delayed so much that you risk misaligning it with your Technical Finish burst entirely. In the scenario of the second opener, one Saber Dance proc before you blow the two random Reverse Cascade and Fountainfall procs from the opening Cascade > Fountain sequence pushes Flourish’s use to roughly 15 seconds into your Technical Finish window. If an odd-number Flourish is delayed by even 1 GCD (odd-numbered Flourishes are the ones between TF windows), you’ve basically pushed its use to 17~18 seconds into your burst. A second 1 GCD delay pushes Flourish out of your burst window entirely.

OP’s lack of understanding of this proves he doesn’t understand the basics of optimizing the job, or how detrimental his desire to Cascade > Fountain before Technical can hurt the job’s alignment and burst. I just hope prospective DNCs ignore these “options”—because, at the end of the day, there are very few “options” for mathematically optimal openers. This game is extremely rigid in terms of what’s mathematically the best and what’s mathematically subpar.

---

Yeah, the DNC in my group stresses so much on the fact that he cannot hold buffs (or do like ranged LB on healer gaols in Titan) because it will ruin his alignment for the entire rest of the fight cause it's just that strict of a rotation. Which just kinda tells me the OP has not put any time in most of these jobs nor has he thoroughly discussed them with people who are well versed in these jobs, otherwise he'd know things like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZyrinMisharuji

Yeah, the DNC in my group stresses so much on the fact that he cannot hold buffs (or do like ranged LB on healer gaols in Titan) because it will ruin his alignment for the entire rest of the fight cause it's just that strict of a rotation. Which just kinda tells me the OP has not put any time in most of these jobs nor has he thoroughly discussed them with people who are well versed in these jobs, otherwise he'd know things like this.

---

He should be able to LB the first set of gaols without really losing much. Here’s the tip from the DNC Guide for each fight this tier:

Quote:

---

If you are Limit Breaking the first Rock Throw / Granite Gaols (Healer Jails) make sure you use Standard Step(Assuming it is available before you start LBing) then use Limit Break. If you have been using Standard Step with no drifting, you can get both steps off then Limit Break. After the LB, depending if there has been a drift or not, use Standard Finish (don't forget the 2 steps first if needed)

---

My group does ranged LB3 on the second jails, but there’s talk in the Balance showing Caster LB3 is better there. I know for me, I can get all my Flourished procs off before I LB, but then SF is delayed a bit. The BLM in my static offered to LB3 the second hails and I may just let him. We don’t LB2 the first ones, even though LB2 first jails > melee LB3 boss is an option.

Tl;dr - LB shenanigans in E4S are annoying. But doable.

The Arguments in this Are really stupid, there are plenty of Mods in the balance discord that spread misinformation, if anything they banned this person because they feel threatened by his ability and his passion for at least trying to make guides , if anything at least he delivers some type of content disregarding that the content might not be completely sound that shouldn't lead to a ban of any sort from any community, i personally find the balance discord community to be one of the biggest spreaders of misinformation as well there's a majority of mods in that discord, they have rules against it, but don't prevent their own staff from doing it and selectively choose to disregard any and most accusations against their moderation. the discord was made for selfish purposes not to benefit the community.

Keep making guides OP; Regardless if you get flak from the majority of the Balance community the majority of them parse far lower then their egos suggest.
you have a lot of different openers there's a couple that aren't entirely optimal; but you did include information in your guide.

If anything this community is afraid of you because you spend a good amount of time making that guide and putting your effort to it, far better then their guides located on their website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HyoMinPark

He should be able to LB the first set of gaols without really losing much. Here’s the tip from the DNC Guide for each fight this tier:



My group does ranged LB3 on the second jails, but there’s talk in the Balance showing Caster LB3 is better there. I know for me, I can get all my Flourished procs off before I LB, but then SF is delayed a bit. The BLM in my static offered to LB3 the second hails and I may just let him. We don’t LB2 the first ones, even though LB2 first jails > melee LB3 boss is an option.

Tl;dr - LB shenanigans in E4S are annoying. But doable.

---

Hmm, I didn't know that. But my group has been doing SMN LB3 on 2nd goals for awhile cause the tanks can hit the gaols a few times while the DPS remain on the boss and the LB will break the gaols.

Forum rules:

- Posting aimed to create a negative impact on the community or its members.

This wasnt a thread to discuss these openers but to spread missinformation to feed the OP Tornado Kick nostalgia, which is against the forum rules.
Thanks to the people that corrected these bad openers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shalfu

Forum rules:

- Posting aimed to create a negative impact on the community or its members.

This wasnt a thread to discuss these openers but to spread missinformation to feed the OP Tornado Kick nostalgia, which is against the forum rules.
Thanks to the people that corrected these bad openers.

---

Okay? That's not your scope bro to even say that or even come to that conclusion, The Community Members of that Discord are coming in here and attacking someone who has nothing to do with it. This isn't a post aimed to creatrive negative impact on the community or its members you guys are posting only targeting the op showing how crappy of a community you guys really are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renkei

Okay? That's not your scope bro to even say that or even come to that conclusion, The Community Members of that Discord are coming in here and attacking someone who has nothing to do with it. This isn't a post aimed to creatrive negative impact on the community or its members you guys are posting only targeting the op showing how crappy of a community you guys really are.

---

OP admitted that everything OP created was to cater that TK opener, which wasn't even a gain in the first place not even under all raid buffs. This has been proven to OP multiple times with different people on private messages and other channels. With math backing up the pointers. So continuing to spread things OP, for sure at this point, knows that its incorrect, its only harmful for the community and would only cause a negative impact to its members.

OP claims to have used the tools provided by experts in each job, everyone of these experts have proved OP wrong. I don't know whats the deal with naming them in the OP post when they are telling OP that OP is wrong.

I won't be the one to tell you how to play the game. But I won't let OP misslead the community either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renkei

Okay? That's not your scope bro to even say that or even come to that conclusion, The Community Members of that Discord are coming in here and attacking someone who has nothing to do with it. This isn't a post aimed to creatrive negative impact on the community or its members you guys are posting only targeting the op showing how crappy of a community you guys really are.

---

The OP used to be a member of the Balance (a community that he brings into the conversation through his guide), and he was told repeatedly that what he is advertising in his documents is not optimal. The document is misleading at best, presenting these openers as an option for optimal play where there are no options for optimal play when it comes to openers and buff alignment in the opener. The majority of this thread is people trying to correct him and explain to him why these are not as great as he thinks they are. Spreading misinformation is pretty crappy, in my opinion; as is attempting to theorycraft for jobs that one has very little understanding of.

OP has every right to play his own openers, rotations, and discuss theorycrafts. The issue is presenting these ideas as a guide for the community. Spreading misinformation is harmful to the average player looking to better themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockette

OP has every right to play his own openers, rotations, and discuss theorycrafts. The issue is presenting these ideas as a guide for the community. Spreading misinformation is harmful to the average player looking to better themselves.

---

This. It is important to note that no one is saying"You CANNOT play that way" we are all simply saying that the OP presenting these openers as a guide and saying they are "optimal" is wrong and will mislead newer players which is not good for the community. It would be one thing if there was extensive math to support the claims about these openers and if that math proved that this way of doing things was actually competitive with what the Balance suggests, but this is not the case. Like LyraEbonfall stated, the mentors on Balance spend hours upon hours upon hours doing nothing but testing different openers, skill rotations, etc to see what gives the highest statistical gains for each job while taking into consideration what gives the highest gains to other jobs. It's A LOT of tireless work and communication going on constantly about any sort of improvement that can be made. The OP is pretty much saying that the extensive amount of work all of these mentors did is wrong and that his feelings on how things should be done is right while offering no support to that claim. To do so is, as someone said, misinformation at best. Intentional toxicity at worst. Especially if the OP is actually only suggesting these because they are the best alignment for his Tornado Kick opener that he loves to do. Attempting to pass off information as "optimal" solely to benefit yourself and no one else is, and always will be, wrong and worthy of condemning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZyrinMisharuji

snippers

---

To piggyback on this point, it was interesting how OP managed to find some TK rotation for MNK. Yes its not optimal at all, but TK being in the spotlight in 4.X was a nice change because it being a disengagement skill felt so bad. Ofc the devs intended it as such, so the TK opener was nerfed to the ground. Again, if you wanna do that, do that.

The issue everyone is bringing is that OP applied this logic to jobs they dont even touch. Iirc before they edited it, the DRG opener had a pointless BotD weave even though 80 DRG (heck, 70 DRG) never needs to press BotD since Lance Mastery exists. How can you possibly talk about "an optimal and alternative way to play" a class youre not clearly 100% about? The answer is, you can't. There are ppl in this thread that point out basic job rotational hiccups that indicate OP doesn't touch the class or even thinks about it more critically.


And the fact they're saying it's an alternate way to boost raid damage is not really true at all. And the fact that they posted this in ALL THREE ROLE FORUMS means they think they're paving the way to a new way of optimal play from like, half the math most theorycrafters and testers in the Balance do. OP is posting nothing more than misinformation. And that's what's offending raiders who consider how to squeeze out as much damage as possible from their jobs and raid buff alignment.

OP has said in another thread that the TK rotation invigorated Monk for him and the "back to 2.0" rotation of Shadowbringers is so awful he decided to look for an alternative rotation in which Monk could utilize more of the skills it has been given.

I empathize with this on a soul level, I really do.

But you can't just...wish things into being better. Unfortunately.

To piggyback on the two previous post: If you want to find ways to implement skills that you feel should be used more, more power to you. I desperately want TK to be usable consistently throughout a fight and for Anatman to not feel so clunky, but I will never and would never suggest using that TK rotation to anyone wanting to push their DPS to the limits because it just doesn't do high enough DPS to be competitive with the current openers available to us.

If you want to use that opener and follow the rotation that allows for TK to be used super frequently, then do so. No one ever wants to tell or be told how they have to play this game. That being said, do not say that it's "optimal" or "close in dps" to the available openers unless you have statistical proof to support that claim. And I don't mean 1 good parse where the stars aligned and you got chakra procs or whatever out the whazoo. I mean hundreds of parses or simulations that show a consistent amount of damage that is within 200-300 DPS of the current best openers (200-300 is sort of a rough range. If you want to be technical for MNKs the PB opener is 400 DPS below the best opener and Anatman opener is 200 DPS below the best opener. But the best opener is really janky and is super universe brain so it isn't recommended at all even though it's the highest DPSing).

I would like the think that everyone who has replied in this forum very much loves the job they main and have the desire to push the DPS of their job to the absolute limits and are constantly trying to do just that, constantly asking questions about anything they think might push them ahead or anything that they're confused about all just to get a consistent gain in DPS. To say "This method is optimal and better than what is the norm/recommended method by Balance" but offer no extensive proof of it actually being better is just sort of a slap in the face to all of us who love our job and love trying to push our DPS to the limits.

So two things.

One, frankly appalled by OP for reposting the same thread across all three subforums and I have to wonder why that doesn't constitute spam.

Second, as I said in one of the other threads,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

Y'all realize that if the OP is such a bad thing, the best way to address the issue is to just let the thread quietly wither away and be buried from lack of responses, rather than attempt to engage someone who obviously doesn't know what they're doing in discourse, right?

(I recognize the irony in my having to post to say that. Don't even bother responding to this, please.)

---

OP, i suggest you to not post your finds as facts or absolutes and state that "You have no idea" on half of these classes actually play out the next time. As I said in my previous post, your OP isnt inviting to discussion but claims to be somewhat "optimal". there is where the problem lies.

If you really like monk, go ahead and learn more of a single job instead of adventuring in doing anything close to suggest how to play jobs you've never touched before or have little experience on them.
You are able to correct your documents because people are telling you where you are wrong. You should, by no means, get your job peer checked before claiming absolutes to avoid the problems here stated.

That said, just let the thread die as they've done on healer job forum the best to do is to not pay attention to this.

I was thinking of slowly doing this over the next month or so, but how would people feel if I made individual timelines for each class in relation to raid buffs?

It'd be a lot of work, but it'd make it easier for people to see the goal of these openers at a glance. Plus, if they still need extra confirmation, they'd be able to math it out themselves without having to consistently double check the timestamp of each ability.

Oh my! I can't wait for it!