At 95th percentile in 5.1, BRD's total contribution is the lowest of all DPS

It's not being defensive, it's correcting misinformation. It's also outlining that this isn't valid/vetted Theorycraft from Summoners at The Balance, unless we're now treating anything randomly discussed as coming from us. As a mentor there, for the job being discussed, I absolutely have the right to call that out. Often do people say "but nem said/worked on x" when I didn't do such at all, or that something came from the server as de facto when it really didn't.

Stating that a well played smn could have that many gcds of movement with no potency loss is outright false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rasikko

Meanwhile the pot smoking SMNs are complaining about doing too much damage.

---

Because we’re self aware enough to realize when our class is unhealthy for the game as a whole by invalidating the rest of our role and others entirely?

I remember BRDs being happy with being broken for the entirety of SB and some of ARR for its support capabilities but failed to recognize their internal balance problems that pushed their personal DPS numbers too high (Nevermind MCH’s issues throughout its lifetime). None of these players paid attention to FFLogs or savage, yet they did remember to complain in HW because of Bow Mage pushing on “Their identity”. There’s a reason SMN got overbuffed in SB to begin with and SE is presumably making the same mistake because they think it’s healthy and what players want.

What SMNs want is a working pet system with glamours to appease those who want more egi. QoL has ever been the driver of their class. We wanted to keep our relative position on the FFLogs graph while removing the obvious gap in rDPS that was present in half the classes, including BRD.

As of right now I’d say the gap is closed, but some classes need to shift. BRD isn’t one of them imo. It can get a DoT boost and be okay but it shouldn’t exceed DNC as the latter relies more on its burst DPS from Steps than BRD does and therefore should be rewarded accordingly. SMN needs a nerf on Burning Strike by 10-20 pet potency, Tri-D’s nuke toned down to 200, and to revert the Ruin IV buff. Then it will be okay. Ideally it and MCH should be in the middle around NIN/DRG level. No other classes need changes numerically.

I agree that BRD’s identity is under attack in some ways, but accepting that identity should also come at a cost, namely in numbers. The same is equally true of SMN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nemekh

It's not being defensive, it's correcting misinformation. It's also outlining that this isn't valid/vetted Theorycraft from Summoners at The Balance, unless we're now treating anything randomly discussed as coming from us. As a mentor there, for the job being discussed, I absolutely have the right to call that out. Often do people say "but nem said/worked on x" when I didn't do such at all, or that something came from the server as de facto when it really didn't.

Stating that a well played smn could have that many gcds of movement with no potency loss is outright false.

---

And that would be absolutely correct if we are talking about Summoner rotations and damage optimizations. But we are not. This is a thread discussing Bard's very low damage dealing issues, and the subject of mobility came to play. Now could I have used better verbage and deffinitely excluded the exact phrase "At no potency loss" and instead amended it with something like "Without extreme potency loss" or "without overuse of ruin 2"? Absolutely and my apologies on that. But I didn't say it was a vetted approach and in no way stated that "This is the way to handle movement sections as a Summoner". It was a relevant piece of information of the topic so I brought it up as it's something I read and was quite surprised by, and it's not in anyway false, a Summoner can go that long without a single ruin 2 cast. Which even just a few weeks ago would have been viewed as insane.

And while I understand you are not trying to be defensive and instead just trying to do your due diligence as a mentor, something you are damn good at, it does come off defensive when you use very implicit phrases like "Don't put words in our mouth with hyperbole." I can understand why you would take that approach if people are routinely quoting you out of context. I just want it known I am not in anyway quoting you or any of the mentors in the balance.

I don't understand why square Enix are so bad at balancing numbers.

They can easly parse DPS in their studio before making a decision and patch. They don't know how to play the game and can't do savage/trials/raid content and do test ? I just don't get it.

damn, smn OP again now huh? gonna make good alternative for when im doing stuff like e4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ErzaScarlet77

damn, smn OP again now huh? gonna make good alternative for when im doing stuff like e4

---

More that Summoner is a tad bit too strong and that Ranged as a whole is a tad bit too weak and Bard is the weakest of that role.

On the other hand, I'm not sure we Bards can even come to an agreement on exactly how our 'identity' should even work, which muddles the waters even further. Although I think most of us would agree that we'd rather take steps to return to SB Bard, with maybe Foe Requiem restored or something.

I think what would help on the DPS front is that instead of DoT damage being restored, the devs could adjust the song buffs further, overhaul Battle Voice to something resembling what it did back in ARR/HW, and increase Repertoire and/or Straight Shot proc rates to something more stable (like 50%). Though I'm not much of a math person.

Maybe something like this:

- Battle Voice: Instead of providing the Direct Hit boost for 20 seconds, it instead supercharges the buff effect from the songs, doubling (or tripling) the effect while active. Duration increased to 30 seconds.
- Army's Paeon: Direct Hit boost increased from +3% to +5%
- Repertoire proc rates increased from 40% to 45%
- Straight Shot proc rate increased from 35% to 45%

Sigh. . .

SOMEONE HAS TO BE THE LOWEST OF THE DPS. . . Literally no matter what they do there will always be a lowest. And generally it will be the "support".

The question to always ask is: What is the spread?

The tanks and heals all look around 10% of each other. The DPS look to be about 10% of each other as well.

This is called "Balance".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

Sigh. . .

SOMEONE HAS TO BE THE LOWEST OF THE DPS. . . Literally no matter what they do there will always be a lowest. And generally it will be the "support".

The question to always ask is: What is the spread?

The tanks and heals all look around 10% of each other. The DPS look to be about 10% of each other as well.

This is called "Balance".

---

i'm assuming you just don't know better so feel free to double check but your numbers are plain wrong, looking at the all fights metric for eden savage at the 95% percentile, current patch only the heals are actually in the range of 6% to each other, the tanks are even balanced down to a 3% range whereas as far as dps go the top dps is more than 13% above the weakest dps, the dps discreptancy is literally twice as big as the one for heals and 4 times as big as the ones tanks have, and one could even argue that a tight dps balance is more important on dps players compared to tanks/heals as on a per person basis they deal a higher percentage of the total damage. yes dps have different roles but at the end of the day it boils down to "do damage" especially if the difference gets that big

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

Sigh. . .

SOMEONE HAS TO BE THE LOWEST OF THE DPS. . . Literally no matter what they do there will always be a lowest. And generally it will be the "support".

The question to always ask is: What is the spread?

The tanks and heals all look around 10% of each other. The DPS look to be about 10% of each other as well.

This is called "Balance".

---

Please check your numbers before throwing out a statement like that.

And there goes AST, support, doing more damage than WHM and SCH.
Here we go again...

FFlogs was a mistake.

95th percentile is a bad metric to use because the game does not and has never revolved around balance among the top 5% of the playerbase, dps-wise. This is not reflective of the player base as a whole. On top of that, FFlogs is a rigged environment in that it's a voluntarily used uploading system, meaning a person has to upload it themselves for it to appear on FFlogs. This creates bias because only people who want to show off their parse will be uploading to FFlogs. Hence, you're using information uploaded by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of players and then taking that incredibly small sample and drawing a broad conclusion based upon it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

Snip

---

Your focusing exclusively on the negatives of something without even considering any of the many positives. One, simply put console players like me could never get any real valid feedback on our play without sites like FFlogs, as we don't have the ability already as it is to objectively break down our mistakes without the help of others, not having something like FF logs means we wouldn't even be able to then view our parses without someone just sending us screenshots of the numbers. We wouldn't be able to read things like buff up times and overall dps uptime in general. You would be playing blind, and being ignorant of your own issues and failures is never a good thing.

Now you could say that the rankings of FFlogs are a problem, but that just comes down to a more way of how you view the world, IE do you think competition is bad? It stands to reason that those who who upload parses are either competitive by nature or want to be better, thus use it to create a system that shows where they are amongst their peers. Players struggling will see they are doing poorly and seek to get better, and players who are at the top of their game will seek to push themselves to get even better and push their jobs to the absolute limit. If you see these as bad things, or not worth the negatives, that's just a philosophical disagreement.

Finally as to your question of balance and percentiles, their is no official metric of where the devs balance around and seems to routinely waffle between the casual and the hardcore. Once again this can be a philosophical opinion, as the argument of if Dev's should balance over the players who know the game best or the majority who just enjoy playing has been one that has gone on for years in every game that uses a class or hero based system that has a meta of some kind. What isn't an opinion though is the idea that these balance issues are only present at the top. If the idea that these balance issues do not exist in the middle then we would see a more balanced number spread at the 50th percentile, or the mean average. But that's not the case. In fact the range of difference between the top DPS and the bottom DPS is somewhere around 1.5k, and this does not change until you get to the absolute bare minimum where it levels out at 1k. One would think at these lower levels that jobs like Bard or Dancer or Red Mage with much simpler rotations and less punishing uptime requirements would be much higher, yet they are still at the bottom, while Summoner and Monk enjoy their time at the top.

cont:

Also as a more personal aside, sites like FFlogs only exist because the game itself gives players no real feedback on their play. Some players say bad players will always be bad, and sometimes thats true, but it isn't always. What is true though is that ignorant players will always be bad, because they will never know better. Until XIV starts giving SOME sort of actual in game official feedback to players of how they are doing, even if it's something simple and private like an end instance grading card that can't be seen by anyone but the player, sites like FFlogs and ffxivanalysis, and tools like ACT will always be necessary and needed by the community.

So, when are we giving back 5 periodic potency to each DoT? Or all 10?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

95th percentile is a bad metric to use because the game does not and has never revolved around balance among the top 5% of the playerbase, dps-wise.

---

They're the worst at every percentile except the 10th. Is the whole top 90% also poorly representative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

Snip.

---

You're forgetting that there's also a good number of bad parses from people making mistakes and dying.

Not every party is perfect and there's a good chance some people will end up dying and their parse will end up being low while others will do super well, the only parses that don't get uploaded are the super terrible ones where nobody does well.

Also, balancing around the 95% is a good metric, the people in the 95th percentile know how to play their class and play it well to the point of near perfection. The classes should not be balanced around the performance of people who don't even know how to pair barrage with a high potency skill, or to use standard step off cooldown.

Let me put it this way, if you think the classes should be balanced around people who can't even play their classes well, we might as well remove all skills and just give all dps a single 500-600 potency gcd, with varying ranges and cast times depending on the role, because that's literally the only way you could balance classes then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiled_Tonberry

And there goes AST, support, doing more damage than WHM and SCH.
Here we go again...

---

Support should be doing the most rDPS. Otherwise whats the point of support? Why put in more effort from everyone to gain less than one person playing selfishly?

In an ideal world the classes that buff damage(and only have damage buff utility) > the classes without damage buffs.

Are you trying to say Bard needs to be doing more DPS? Because it being a ranged caster that doesn't have to stand still to cast anything, it should be on the lowered end of the dps charts. Think it should sit right above dancer and under RDM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ahrijlaken

I don't understand why square Enix are so bad at balancing numbers.
They can easly parse DPS in their studio before making a decision and patch. They don't know how to play the game and can't do savage/trials/raid content and do test ? I just don't get it.

---

Might come as a surprise to you but developers are not hardcore raiders. Most of the people working on job balance would probably not be able to clear the content created.
That is why community team and player feedback will always be needed :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FallenWings

Support should be doing the most rDPS. Otherwise whats the point of support? Why put in more effort from everyone to gain less than one person playing selfishly?

In an ideal world the classes that buff damage(and only have damage buff utility) > the classes without damage buffs.

---

thank you for that... i really don't get why people think all other things being equal buffing the group for lets say 1000 dps means you should personally do 1200 dps less, theres literally zero point to having damage buffs if you as a group would do more damage taking the person that doesn't have these buffs and simply hits a bit harder themselves.

Mind you, i still think Ast got overbuffed, half the difference between ast and whm would be plenty sufficient, but yes balancing can be a fickle thing and healer balance is still pretty good overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MitsukiKimura

Are you trying to say Bard needs to be doing more DPS? Because it being a ranged caster that doesn't have to stand still to cast anything, it should be on the lowered end of the dps charts. Think it should sit right above dancer and under RDM.

---

while i'm not gonna go argue on the whole "what use is free movement if even when its usefull, i.e. the highest of movement fights you still do lower numbers" thing here i want to point out that the problem isn't say that bard is below casters. its that bard is (to take your redmage example) 880 dps or a good 6,5% below redmage, which while more restricted in movement also offers the ability to rezz, even chain rezz and throw a cure on someone in a pinch and considering the chain rezz value is vastly diminished but still there outside of progress raiding i would even say redmage could use another 100 dps themselves if we do perfect pipe dream balance so bard right now isn't just below redmage, its barely bein able to see it from down where it stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

So, when are we giving back 5 periodic potency to each DoT? Or all 10?



They're the worst at every percentile except the 10th. Is the whole top 90% also poorly representative?

---

Back from my ban finally. Someone got a little salty about my honesty I guess.

More to the point, no, the whole of FFlogs is poorly representative. How many people upload on FFlogs vs. the actual number who play the game? A fraction of a fraction. The people who are going to upload on FFlogs will do so either purely or partly because of self-interest; to one degree or another, they want to flex their e-peen. There might be some altruism there in a general "let me contribute data for a better understanding of the game," and certainly some personal betterment, but ultimately at least part of it comes down to someone bragging.

And you know what? That's fine. The problem comes when people begin to use it as justification for whatever thing it is they want changed or implemented. Even worse when people begin to treat FFlogs like it's some kind of job balance bible, as if the only thing that matters is what the pretty graphs on FFlogs say. We're fast approaching that point, where people use FFlogs as a tool to push their own agenda, an agenda which almost always involves some sort of "moar dps" goal and to hell with anything else. I only hope SE's wisdom of avoiding any kind of outside element like this continues to hold, as I've seen too many good games die when the "paint by numbers" crowd gets sway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

Back from my ban finally. Someone got a little salty about my honesty I guess.

More to the point, no, the whole of FFlogs is poorly representative. How many people upload on FFlogs vs. the actual number who play the game? A fraction of a fraction. The people who are going to upload on FFlogs will do so either purely or partly because of self-interest; to one degree or another, they want to flex their e-peen. There might be some altruism there in a general "let me contribute data for a better understanding of the game," and certainly some personal betterment, but ultimately at least part of it comes down to someone bragging.

And you know what? That's fine. The problem comes when people begin to use it as justification for whatever thing it is they want changed or implemented. Even worse when people begin to treat FFlogs like it's some kind of job balance bible, as if the only thing that matters is what the pretty graphs on FFlogs say. We're fast approaching that point, where people use FFlogs as a tool to push their own agenda, an agenda which almost always involves some sort of "moar dps" goal and to hell with anything else. I only hope SE's wisdom of avoiding any kind of outside element like this continues to hold, as I've seen too many good games die when the "paint by numbers" crowd gets sway.

---

see, funnily enough outside of comparing my own e-peen to others, not necessarely flexing but honestly seeing how i fare the "agenda" people have generally is way less "moar dps" and more "smoother, faster runs", its just that "moar dps" is the answer to how to reach that. having more damage on your side makes fights an incredible lot easier, and that is not a shortcoming of final fantasy, its just how it is, adds die faster, mechanics can be skipped (even if its just not dealing with the very very last mechanic of a fight) and hiccups can be better compensated cause you got a buffer.

also yes, fflogs represents a fraction of a fraction, you are absolutely correct in that assesment, however, given that its not necessarely you yourself that has to upload a run chances are if you do any kind of raid you will be on fflogs, what people here are advocating for, no matter what their opinion is on particular classes or numbers or whatever is for RAID balance, and while i do believe you allways should keep the whole game in your mind while actually balancing it one has to accept that raids are the content were balance actually matters the most, pvp gets balanced differently alltogether, dungeons simply aren't tight enough on any kind of demands as to make it important how good or bad a class is, neither is leveling, and things like heaven on high in fact actually are basically whats the least affected by dps in the sense that whats important there are completly different things than how much damage you deal so it makes sense to talk about numbers if you want to talk raid balance, because thats where they matter.

and again, if you raid in any kind of static, 95% of the time they will upload to fflogs, if you do raids through partyfinder ? you cant even decide if it gets uploaded as you have no control over all the random people with you, the person that has cleared every boss more than once and is NOT on fflogs is in fact the outlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

More to the point, no, the whole of FFlogs is poorly representative. How many people upload on FFlogs vs. the actual number who play the game? A fraction of a fraction.

---

Unless there is a specific reason for those who volunteer their parses or happen even just to be in the party of someone who has to be consistently distinct in numerical fashion from those who do not, the sheer size of the sample is going to mean more than its relative percentage when evaluating consistency, likely ease of play, and likely performance. FFlogs has 72574 from Eden Savage alone in just the last week. That is not an insignificant sample size.

And veteran players on averaged very good but imperfect run are exactly what should be balancing jobs around, not the lowest denominator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

to one degree or another, they want to flex their e-peen.

---

Yes, I'm sure the guys struggling step by step from a 20th percentile to a 45th, asking friends for advice and practicing on dummies between each, are doing so just so the world can see them stroke their massive, below-average parses. Couldn't possibly be for self-improvement. Nope, not a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

Even worse when people begin to treat FFlogs like it's some kind of job balance bible, as if the only thing that matters is what the pretty graphs on FFlogs say. We're fast approaching that point, where people use FFlogs as a tool to push their own agenda.

---

Imagine that? When over a hundred thousand runs by, as you put it, people more than likely interested in performing well for said runs, contribute data towards their performances at various levels of effort and optimizations -- people might notice where a particular job is lacking and seek to remedy that imbalance. The horror!

The only agenda to be found as a result of measures of performance and imbalance therein is improved performance and, again, balance therein. These aren't grand political crusades. They're data. And I should hope people pushing for a balance change would consult as much data as they can. Theory-crafting is one thing; seeing how well players can actually manage that would-be optimal output is another. Both are useful. Which makes me wonder, which are you suggesting -- that we center our discussions of balance solely on the data of perfect theoretical play, or that we purposely avoid data altogether? I cannot imagine a productive result from either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FallenWings

Support should be doing the most rDPS. Otherwise whats the point of support? Why put in more effort from everyone to gain less than one person playing selfishly?

In an ideal world the classes that buff damage(and only have damage buff utility) > the classes without damage buffs.

---

What? Seriously... what?

Do people still not understand what rDPS is? I mean, it's gotta be that or some hidden warrant telling us the 6% lead AST holds over WHM and SCH should being treated with no more concern than the 0.8% lead WHM holds over SCH... Or perhaps this "ideal world" just really is just one founded on the forcible removal of BLM, SAM, and MCH, and weakening of MNK, SMN, and RDM, all just to elevate DRG, NIN, DNC, and BRD? Are we really just looking for a far fewer competitive compositions than we had in Stormblood?

Contrary to what fflogs metrics may say, every raid-buff goes both ways. Not only does someone have to provide it, but someone also has to capitalize on it. The more personal dps you have, and the more control over its burst, the more you can do with those raid buffs. To say that unless you're throwing out rDPS abilities on CD you must somehow be contributing less effort than the people who bank their resources or vary their rotations beforehand to exploit those CDs is ridiculous. Both are compositionally dependent coordinated efforts.

Yes, perhaps ideally there should always be at least one or two buffers in a given party, but the ability to exploit each is every bit as essential. In some cases, where the buffers also have absurdly strong burst, the two will overlap and form a meta comp, but short of that an ideal balance will include a balance between or down a spectrum of buffers and exploiters at opposite extremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

What? Seriously... what?

Do people still not understand what rDPS is? I mean, it's gotta be that or some hidden warrant telling us the 6% lead AST holds over WHM and SCH should being treated with no more concern than the 0.8% lead WHM holds over SCH... Or perhaps this "ideal world" just really is just one founded on the forcible removal of BLM, SAM, and MCH, and weakening of MNK, SMN, and RDM, all just to elevate DRG, NIN, DNC, and BRD? Are we really just looking for a far fewer competitive compositions than we had in Stormblood?

Contrary to what fflogs metrics may say, every raid-buff goes both ways. Not only does someone have to provide it, but someone also has to capitalize on it. The more personal dps you have, and the more control over its burst, the more you can do with those raid buffs. To say that unless you're throwing out rDPS abilities on CD you must somehow be contributing less effort than the people who bank their resources or vary their rotations beforehand to exploit those CDs is ridiculous. Both are compositionally dependent coordinated efforts.

---

yes but as raidbuffs depend on the level of the whole group, not just your own raising just your own level will in fact result in less of a "win" to the group so if even at the absolute very very top dpS (again for emphasis, talking purely dps buffs here) don't contribute more raid dps than they cost you in personal dps that means they will in fact in weaker groups mean classes with raidbuffs get punished for no pay off.

Imagine 2 totally equal players playing the same classes which are perfectly equal in dps. if you now take 1000 dps off from one of these classes but in exchange give it a raidbuff you now end up in a situation where either in the very best groups the one buffing the group will have to be at least slightly higher, or the class buffing will in fact be ALLWAYS lower, that defeats the purpose of offering a dps buff, a dps buff is in fact a detriment if it doesn't even offer an advantage at the absolute top end, mind you ast being 6% above whm is bad and was definitely overdone, but the reason for that isn't that at the absolute top ast is stronger, its that its too much stronger, if the difference at the top where half as big as it is than whm would be stronger until around 80% and than very slowly get weaker than ast by a negliable amount.

saying "a class with raidbuffs at the absolute realistic top should be equal to a class with no dps buffs" is equivalent to saying "a class offering dps buffs should allways be weaker than a class offering no buffs unless played in one of the very best groups, than they are allowed equality", its like saying its fine if you earn 20% less because of your nationality if you are a basic worker as long as your pay is equal if you got to be ceo

edit: just to clarify two things, a) either way in an ideal case the dps differences between classes move in a region where it doesn't really matter what dps you use (think tank balance, who really cares which tank does the most dps?) (this is not a general statement, only concerning the "2 equal dps , one selfish one has a dps buff" situation)

and b) it really doesn't matter if blm, sam or on the other hand nin is on top by 100 dps, if whm or ast bring 5% more dps, there will allways be a meta, unless absolute perfect balance is achieved, and thats a pretty lofty goal. in that regard it isn't any better or worse if at the end of the day blm and samurai or summoner (utility buffs are a different story, strictly concerning the fact smn has a dps buff, blm is selfish here) and ninja offer the most dps or if you are better of paring them with a mch or a brd, as such it is futile to break ones mind over the possibility of a certain class ending up slightly stronger than others, selfish or not, the best we (or rather the developers) can aim for is "so close 99% of the playerbase won't give a damn)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FallenWings

Support should be doing the most rDPS. Otherwise whats the point of support? Why put in more effort from everyone to gain less than one person playing selfishly?

In an ideal world the classes that buff damage(and only have damage buff utility) > the classes without damage buffs.

---

Not exactly, they indeed "give" the most rDPS, that's the point.
rDPS is simply your personnal DPS to which you add the DPS given to teammates and minus the DPS taken from raidbuff that aren't yours.
Some jobs eats more raidbuff than the others, tanks are a good example: Gunbreaker benefits from all buff, Warriors doesn't benefits from Crit&DH buff, PLD&DRK don't fully benefit from the physical buff.
Meaning the Gunbreaker rDPS given is the most negative since the job takes the most out of the raidbuff but gives nothing in return.

In an ideal world, all DPS jobs rDPS should be within a 500 dps range, jobs with no support should profits from all raidbuff and support not profit a lot. If all the support jobs would have higher rDPS the community would go back to Stormblood mentality where SAM and BLM suck because they don't bring anything to the party, but now with MCH. You could also have double ranged (DNC&BRD) composition without any mages since they bring little.

I think we all remember the end of HW where rDPS was everything. Trick Attack, Hypercharge, Requiem and Battle Litany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKNovel

Not exactly, they indeed "give" the most rDPS, that's the point.
rDPS is simply your personnal DPS to which you add the DPS given to teammates and minus the DPS taken from raidbuff that aren't yours.
Some jobs eats more raidbuff than the others, tanks are a good example: Gunbreaker benefits from all buff, Warriors doesn't benefits from Crit&DH buff, PLD&DRK don't fully benefit from the physical buff.
Meaning the Gunbreaker rDPS given is the most negative since the job takes the most out of the raidbuff but gives nothing in return.

In an ideal world, all DPS jobs rDPS should be within a 500 dps range, jobs with no support should profits from all raidbuff and support not profit a lot. If all the support jobs would have higher rDPS the community would go back to Stormblood mentality where SAM and BLM suck because they don't bring anything to the party, but now with MCH. You could also have double ranged (DNC&BRD) composition without any mages since they bring little.

I think we all remember the end of HW where rDPS was everything. Trick Attack, Hypercharge, Requiem and Battle Litany.

---

but raid dps is still everything, this also doesn't change either way no matter if brd, nin or blm is in front, it just means right now you take the samurai instead of the nin because he in fact adds more raid dps through his superior personal dps alone.

and jobs with no support are in fact the one that profit the most from raidbuffs, thats why the dancer will buff the samurai and not the redmage, just that in fact these dps buffs than get counted for the one adding the buff, not the one doing the damage. you say "rdps was everything, trick attack, hypercharge, requiem...." like thats somehow worse than "lets all remember the time where when you wanted the highest raid dps you stacked the classes that in fact were the most self sufficient".

the problem at the end of heavensward was that brd and mch indeed were too strong (because they basically only got buffed over and over to beat out each other) and synergized way to much with dragoon, the only reason raidbuffs are ever worth it is if at the least at the top they offer somewhat of a group dps increase, and at the end of the day it isn't any worse if in a 99% group the group does 150 dps more if the take ninja instead of samurai instead of the other way around, the one thing thats really important is that the discrepancies between both cases are close enough it doesn't matter unless you are a total "going for fastest speedrun on every single eden turn" kind of person, its just that entering the end of heavensward square completly failed at getting the "close enough" part right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

What? Seriously... what?

Do people still not understand what rDPS is? I mean, it's gotta be that or some hidden warrant telling us the 6% lead AST holds over WHM and SCH should being treated with no more concern than the 0.8% lead WHM holds over SCH... Or perhaps this "ideal world" just really is just one founded on the forcible removal of BLM, SAM, and MCH, and weakening of MNK, SMN, and RDM, all just to elevate DRG, NIN, DNC, and BRD? Are we really just looking for a far fewer competitive compositions than we had in Stormblood?

Contrary to what fflogs metrics may say, every raid-buff goes both ways. Not only does someone have to provide it, but someone also has to capitalize on it. The more personal dps you have, and the more control over its burst, the more you can do with those raid buffs. To say that unless you're throwing out rDPS abilities on CD you must somehow be contributing less effort than the people who bank their resources or vary their rotations beforehand to exploit those CDs is ridiculous. Both are compositionally dependent coordinated efforts.

Yes, perhaps ideally there should always be at least one or two buffers in a given party, but the ability to exploit each is every bit as essential. In some cases, where the buffers also have absurdly strong burst, the two will overlap and form a meta comp, but short of that an ideal balance will include a balance between or down a spectrum of buffers and exploiters at opposite extremes.

---

It sounds like you don't understand rDPS. If a job whose only utility is damage buffs is not providing more rDPS to the party than a selfish DPS, then you should always take the selfish DPS. Selfish DPS should be highest in aDPS, while support DPS should be highest in rDPS (before accounting for non-damage support abilities). Ideally it would be, in terms of rDPS provided, badly timed support < selfish DPS < well timed support, so a selfish job provides slightly more rDPS in the worst case and a bit less in the best case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

More to the point, no, the whole of FFlogs is poorly representative. How many people upload on FFlogs vs. the actual number who play the game? A fraction of a fraction.

---

This is irrelevant. When enough data is compiled, it will maintain a statistical average regardless. You don't need one million uploads to determine the DPS output of Dragoon. A few thousand is all it takes provided each job has a comparable amount themselves—which they do. Going from 4,000 Dragoon parses to 20,000 won't impact the overall average. In order for such an anomaly to occur, it'd require an obscene degree of coordinated sabotage and the creator of FFlogs to not notice a bombardment of parses all from the same handful of statics, all with suspiciously bad parses in the same relative time frame. Basically, it'll never happen.

Does that mean FFlogs is 100% accurate. Far from it. Some assumptions have to be made simply because it and/or ACT can't properly track everything. That said, FFlogs still remains a good source of information. Calling it a mistake is just welcoming blissful ignorance.

The only argument you can really make about FFLogs being inaccurate is that most people are going off the average dps of people who do savage, and that people who do savage do much higher dps than the average population.

Though there's also the fact that gear is basically normalized a couple months into the tier since most people will have BiS or at least very close to it, so it ends up evening out regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WrenElessedil

than a selfish DPS

---

"Selfish"?

Okay, let's use TA. 8 players manage their rotations, including sometimes delaying their own skills, as to better exploit the window. 7 of them lose rDPS for those delays. One of them gains the rewards of all 8's management. That's the NIN. The rest are penalized or at best break even in their rDPS parses for the NIN being there.

But NIN is selfless, and the SAM who's providing the NIN with some 800 potency in every other TA, to the diminution of their own parse, is selfish.

Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

"Selfish"?

The rest are penalized or at best break even in their rDPS parses for the NIN being there.

---

Wut? Jobs without buffs are not "penalized" for having a buffing job in the party. Their rdps would remain flat regardless of party comp. For selfish jobs rdps is entirely based on their own personal performance, while buffing jobs are a combination of their own proper timing and the party taking proper advantage of those buffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deathgiver

Wut? Jobs without buffs are not "penalized" for having a buffing job in the party. Their rdps would remain flat regardless of party comp. For selfish jobs rdps is entirely based on their own personal performance, while buffing jobs are a combination of their own proper timing and the party taking proper advantage of those buffs.

---

rDPS = pDPS + givenDPS - takenDPS

Buffs like trick incur takenDPS, which factor into anybody's rDPS. So to state "jobs like samurai have the same rDPS regardless of comp" is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaberMaxwell

rDPS = pDPS + givenDPS - takenDPS

. . . . So to state "jobs like samurai have the same rDPS regardless of comp" is incorrect.

---

It really isnt incorrect when specifically regarding non-buffing jobs:

If an average auto-attack outside of buffs hits for say 1000, and you hit an exactly average aa under trick attack only it's gonna be hitting for 1050 now(for the sake of simplicity, but this applies regardless)

We now subtract the ta contribution of 50 and we have the sam rdps value for that aa, which not coincidentally is exactly what it would've been if he didnt get ta in the first place at exactly 1000. This applies regardless of buff stacking, number of attacks etc. The buffs increasing his aDPS when removed will always represent the samurais raw damage aka rDPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

"Selfish"?

Okay, let's use TA. 8 players manage their rotations, including sometimes delaying their own skills, as to better exploit the window. 7 of them lose rDPS for those delays. One of them gains the rewards of all 8's management. That's the NIN. The rest are penalized or at best break even in their rDPS parses for the NIN being there.

But NIN is selfless, and the SAM who's providing the NIN with some 800 potency in every other TA, to the diminution of their own parse, is selfish.

Interesting.

---

Selfish comes from when FFLogs was only based on DPS without filtering out padding, so the more utility classes you had the higher everyone's dps became, hence the selfish dps part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deathgiver

Wut? Jobs without buffs are not "penalized" for having a buffing job in the party. Their rdps would remain flat regardless of party comp. For selfish jobs rdps is entirely based on their own personal performance, while buffing jobs are a combination of their own proper timing and the party taking proper advantage of those buffs.

---

Any time a job without less indirect dps contributed than received does not perfect their rotation around solely their own damage, i.e. as they might in an SSS fight, they are losing some of their own rDPS in order to benefit others' rDPS. It goes away from their parse and into that of indirect contributors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Any time a job without less indirect dps contributed than received does not perfect their rotation around solely their own damage, i.e. as they might in an SSS fight, they are losing some of their own rDPS in order to benefit others' rDPS. It goes away from their parse and into that of indirect contributors.

---

TFW parse parties are Sam, Blam, Mach, Bard, Wham, Wham.

Well not so much Bard anymore, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

TFW parse parties are Sam, Blam, Mach, Bard, Wham, Wham.

Well not so much Bard anymore, I suppose.

---

At present, the devs still seem to be on a paranoia binge, reeling off the dominance of rDPS comps in early-mid Stormblood. As such, low indirect contributors are far, far lower than they should be.
(A shame the same trauma couldn't inform their SMN balance for more than a single major patch...)

I don't want to see indirect contributing jobs crushed by those without such utility, but it makes no sense to effectively sideline and and every job without utility just because "they're selfish" (despite parses forcing the opposite interaction, even prior to fflogs swapping their default metric to rDPS) or "utility should be rewarded".

So, should "rDPS jobs" have the most rDPS?
Given the current flaw in fflogs' metrics in that contributors effectively steal parse, yes, and I'd have agreed much more readily if more people seemed to actually understand what rDPS was and how it works as a metric. Heck, they would have to be, at present, considering they've already being fed 7 other parses at the others' expense (or at least zero benefit). But even that should be very slight as not to bring us right back to the DRG/NIN/BRD/MCHDNC meta.

Should they actually contribute any more than those without utility, though? No. Every job should have a place in some composition -- ideally, the majority of compositions. A little 'law of equilibrium' balance between the most extreme of indirect or direct-only contribution would be fine, but utility does not excuse a stale meta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Any time a job without less indirect dps contributed than received does not perfect their rotation around solely their own damage, i.e. as they might in an SSS fight, they are losing some of their own rDPS in order to benefit others' rDPS. It goes away from their parse and into that of indirect contributors.

---

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. . . We were not talking comp rotation optimization, I'm pointing out the fact that given x rotation , rDPS is exactly the same regardless of buffs on non-buffing classes.

This doesnt apply to classes that provide any sort of dps gain buff.

Edit: I'm gonna go ahead and admit I missed 1 key word in your post earlier, and you were actually talking about optimizing rotation, smh. I still disagree with your point though. Unless you're losing a cast of something by holding it for a buff window you're not actually going to be losing anything significant from your rdps. If it does cause a loss it will still be fairly minor, otherwise you wouldn't hold for the buff window in the first place. What you're talking about is likely < 1% rDPS