"Selfish"?Quote:
Originally Posted by WrenElessedil
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.
-
11-07-2019, 06:49 AMShurrikhan
-
11-07-2019, 07:06 AMDeathgiverWut? 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 Shurrikhan
-
11-07-2019, 07:14 AMSaberMaxwellrDPS = pDPS + givenDPS - takenDPSQuote:
Originally Posted by Deathgiver
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. -
11-07-2019, 07:30 AMDeathgiverIt really isnt incorrect when specifically regarding non-buffing jobs:Quote:
Originally Posted by SaberMaxwell
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. -
11-07-2019, 07:51 AMDogempireSelfish 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 Shurrikhan
-
11-07-2019, 03:22 PMShurrikhanAny 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 Deathgiver
-
11-07-2019, 03:25 PMKabooaTFW parse parties are Sam, Blam, Mach, Bard, Wham, Wham.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Well not so much Bard anymore, I suppose. -
11-07-2019, 03:46 PMShurrikhanAt 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabooa
(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. -
11-07-2019, 04:01 PMDeathgiverI 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
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