Disembowel: Please Fix this Mess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejiko_san

Stop trying to nerf my job to make your job feel better.

Thank you

Signed an annoyed Dragoon.

---

The solution I suggested was not a nerf to anyone. One of the steps I listed was to adjust potencies so that no-one got the short end of the stick. I hate nerfs as much as the next guy, I just would like for the game to encourage a more diverse meta than DRG BRD for every group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EllieShadeflare

You buff Bard and Machinist to compensate for the loss of Disembowel's piercing debuff. If need be, you put 5% back into Heavy Thrust (making it a 10% again) or roll Heavy Thrust's effect into Disembowel, turning it into a 10% damage up you maintain by comboing, which makes the job flow better, and probably allows for something more interesting to happen with Heavy Thrust.

Machinist might need a 5-10% potency buff, maybe reinvigorate Hot Shot. Of the two Phys. Ranged DPSes, it's in the rougher spot, and SB seems to try and make it the more selfish of the two "support" DPSes.

Bard doesn't need much of a buff, since its major strength comes from its utility.

---

Not really. Even if piercing get removed, bard/mch raid dps contribution is still same. That only nerf dragoon. It is same if ninja trick attack get removed, should all dps get +100 dps buff or if summoner contagion would get removed, should BLM get 200+ dps buff compensation from that? Once astro balance become 20% -> 10% did other jobs get damage buff from that as compensation? Disembowel is purely utility of dragoon like every other utility in this game.

I don’t rightly understand the hubbub about metas. There will always be a meta. If you remove or nerf synergy-based metas you’ll immediately see them replaced with DPS-based metas. You didn’t fix the meta, you only changed who’s in it while also removing any semblance of class identity.

This is a community problem moreso than a design issue. All comps are viable, but players are sheep. They don’t want viable, they want the best. Since we’ll never have roles 100% equal to one another there will always be a “best” meaning there will always be a meta, even if that “best” class is only on top in a vacuum by a painfully negligible amount.

I agree with your points, but I think it's right to see it from their perspective too, since some are either annoyed by the fact that double ranged has been the best for a long period of time or are simply annoyed by the fact that the presence or not of a DRG has a huge impact on personal performance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElHeggunte

I don’t rightly understand the hubbub about metas. There will always be a meta. If you remove or nerf synergy-based metas you’ll immediately see them replaced with DPS-based metas. You didn’t fix the meta, you only changed who’s in it while also removing any semblance of class identity.

---

So, then the current incarnation of the combat system in the game is perfect, or as close to perfect as it can be? You believe it could benefit from no changes?

This is the problem. Apathy. People just stop caring altogether because, "It's just one thing or the other. It'll just be replaced with another meta. Lol balance is so close why does it matter." They give passes for the mediocre and average because trying to improve on it, in their minds, is a zero sum game. Nobody discussing this is saying that it's the most devastating, prohibitive thing ever, but it's still important to at least talk about. Imagine if people applied this amount of apathy towards 1.0's launch, because, "What do you want, a perfect game?" They could have just let the game die, but the criticism gave way to 2.0, and tons of popularity.

It should go without saying that all of these discussions taking place are because, no matter how small the margin, people want the game to be better and improve where it can. It... SHOULD go without saying. But the more common notion, is that campaigning for a better game, at least in this respect, is stupid because, "Lol Ultimate is so ez any Job can clear lololol". And for that matter, when people stop being "Sheep", and when Jobs stop getting meme'd on is when this stops being a topic for discussion.

All I can say, is that we're all paying for this game. Out of principle alone, no matter the amount, you should want the best out of your money. If you don't care about that, that's fine, but I sure do, so I'll keep wanting for better.

You're reading way too much into what I said (and I didn't specify I guess--I was actually coming to clarify but I guess you beat me to it). I never came close to saying or implying that the game is near perfectly balanced and that it couldn't benefit from changes. I honestly think BRD and MCH would do better if they could stand on their own merits without having to piggyback a DRG just to perform well. It would also probably be nice if NIN didn't have such a tremendous influence on the rest of the party as well.

My point, however, is that complaining about the meta itself is going about it the wrong way. If all you're concerned about is the current meta you're not going to change anything in the grand scheme of things. Discussing class balance and identity as a way to legitimately improve classes that may be lacking something is fine. Discussing class balance and identity just to bust up the current meta is an exercise in futility.

Quote:

---

Imagine if people applied this amount of apathy towards 1.0's launch, because, "What do you want, a perfect game?"

---

Side note, but you'd be surprised at how pervasive this argument was during the early days of 1.0. "Give it time, it'll get better" was a very frequent hand-wave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElHeggunte

Side note, but you'd be surprised at how pervasive this argument was during the early days of 1.0. "Give it time, it'll get better" was a very frequent hand-wave.

---

It didn't get better, they had the dragon god wake up and nuke it

I don't think the intention was to say that those ppl were right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElHeggunte

I don’t rightly understand the hubbub about metas. There will always be a meta. If you remove or nerf synergy-based metas you’ll immediately see them replaced with DPS-based metas. You didn’t fix the meta, you only changed who’s in it while also removing any semblance of class identity.

This is a community problem moreso than a design issue. All comps are viable, but players are sheep. They don’t want viable, they want the best. Since we’ll never have roles 100% equal to one another there will always be a “best” meaning there will always be a meta, even if that “best” class is only on top in a vacuum by a painfully negligible amount.

---

People are not necessarily focused on meta but competitiveness. Summoner doesn't struggle to slot into parties nor has White Mage this expansion. Even Monk after 4.1 has begun to find solid ground, albeit slowly. None of these jobs are meta, though White Mage is valued for prog. What they are is competitive. Contrast that with say, Samurai, which is objectively inferior to any of the three melee, assuming relatively equal skill, and you see the actual problem. Likewise, Bards and Machinists who care to optimize are utterly dependent on a Dragoon or they simply cannot optimize their jobs. Please, go ahead and explain why Physical Range requiring a Dragoon represents anything to do with their respective identity? How about Slash? Warrior, Ninja and Samurai can all apply. What identity do they apparently share? Job identity is little more than an excuse to not make changes which deviant from how the developers want us to play. It's why Yoshida recently lamented Warrior's infrequent use of Defiance. To which I say, "Because you give them no reason to bother with it. What did you expect would happen after implement Shirk?"

I disagree. While the community can overstate how valuable the meta is. The design of this game wholly favours damage above everything else. A pure healer, for example, will spend upwards 60%+ of even Savage content doing absolutely nothing if they refuse to DPS. Likewise, Shirk and Diversion have made Enmity laughably simply, thus what else are tanks going to focus on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

It's why Yoshida recently lamented Warrior's infrequent use of Defiance. To which I say, "Because you give them no reason to bother with it. What did you expect would happen after implement Shirk?"

---

If I had to choose between getting rid of tank stance and getting rid of shirk, I'd choose tank stance any day of the week. Shirk is an interesting and flexible tool that lets you give bonus enmity to your main tank, or seamlessly transition through a tank swap when prompted or otherwise compelled, or to troll your friends. Tank stance on the other hand is a passive "get hurt slightly less" and similarly renders enmity generation a complete joke, it doesn't offer any engaging mechanics or strategies, and by design curtails your damage to perform the job you should have already been capable of doing by default with no modification. Tank stance is just one of many half-baked ideas tanks have to deal with, but is unique in that it's one of the few half-baked ideas that persisted through countless overhauls and re-imaginings.

Unfortunately, they're not really seeing the forest for the trees. Obviously they can tell that nobody in serious content is using tank stance, and we as the players can clearly see a paradigm shift toward managing your own enmity rather than leaving it to the tank, but the overall uselessness of the tank stances seems to be one of those concepts that has consistently eluded them, much like "why are tanks using crafted accessories beyond progression?" and "why do tanks meld for damage and not defense?".