Originally Posted by
Shurrikhan
I feel like it's less that balance is terrible by any consistent numeric standard of deviation... so much as that we've gotten more picky for good reasons.
That is, because the value a job brings has been pruned away to be increasingly represented by just a graph or two regardless of the fight and job mastery has been simplified enough that one can readily expect a decent player on Job A to just swap to Job B if the latter were better for a given fight, it's only natural that even a very small throughput disparity overall would be seen as a reasonable enough indicator of likely performance that party leaders may try to up their chances of success by pruning jobs with lower ceilings or lower throughput-per-effort-put-in (as perceived by the average player and/or shown through percentile gaps, etc.).
There are exceptions to this, of course, but they follow similar trends: Difficulty, outside of perhaps BLM, is not sufficiently rewarded and the devs seem t(r)end towards reducing contextuality and thereby avoid any sort of variable difficulties they might otherwise have to compensate for (see ever-increasing simplification of job gameplay, obese boss hitboxes, etc.).
While that tightens ease of balance between fights on paper, those same changes can often, as a side-effect, reduce the tolerance players have for imbalances, making a 2% rDPS+aDPS disparity, for example, as big a deal now as a 5% disparity may have been in the past, since no job can bring any significant value not seemingly accounted for in those metrics.