How we determine balance and its flaws.

Disclaimer. I may like certain Classes. I don't deny my bias and i know many external factors effect balance (mobility, defensive and healing utility etc.) This isn't some end all statement.

My conclusion: The maximum rdps output of a utility rdps class should be higher than that of a selfish dps class for all classes to be desired. Note I'm talking 90th percentile and up performances.

Constantly on these forums i see people suggesting selfish dps should output the most Rdps. Please take significant notice of what I say here as Rdps is not Personal dps.

I want to present some simple math for this discussion. I've provided it before but never in an unheated or abstracted environment. I've also done much more complex calculations on this but i am trying to keep things as easy to follow as possible.

Imagine a party of 8 players
With MAXIMUM dmg as the values below.
Each dps deals about 14000
Each tank deals about 9000
Each healer deals about 6000
Total damage 86000

*side note reducing tank and healer contribution also reduces the effectiveness of utility dmg dps classes

Now lets add dps specific utility to some of those classes while reducing damage.

Also we must accept that by adding utility dps the difficulty the entire group handles increases marginally as they try to time boost placements. AND the utility rdps boost is reliant on all 8 members performing at maximum efficiency.
I choose 1% for simplicity buff to start, but also because much higher and balance for 24 man and 4 man parties gets disrupted more seriously.

3 dps deal 14000
1 deals 13000 +1% total group dmg (14x3+13+18+12) +850= 13850
Total group dps=85850

Already its obvious that bringing the utility dps at this rate is a loss.

This is aggravated by adding more supports ignoring compounding bonuses (though likely those compounding don't make up the loss anyways as they also normally amplify by a factor no more than 10% to the boosted dmg) as each additional support not only loses more standard dps but takes away from the Rdps of the other supports

2 deal 14000
2 deal 13000+(84000x.01)=13840
Total group = 85680

Considering a possible compound bonus to the buffed dmg of 10% an extra 84×2 at maximum is added
=85848 still slightly worse than 1 support.

With balance as above any Rdps class lowers the effectiveness of the group.

In the above balance scenario the most optimal group AND the most reliable dps is the pure selfish personal DPS units.

So how do we make it so both selfish dps and raid utility dps are desired?

There are a few paths forward all have other adverse effects on game balance. Optimally we want a scenario where 1 selfish and 3 utiliy dps yield the best results by a mild margin over 2 and 2 Why? Because that way the raid dps NEED at least one selfish dps to see their maximum, BUT that maximum is harder to obtain. (More reliant on coordination) and there are less selfish dps than there are dps with dmg utility in the game. Groups that run 4 selfish dps would still be very viable and the most dependable in pugs because lack of coordinated timing will effect damage output minimally.

So we would need to boost the buff while reducing base dps of the raid utility dps classes until we found that optimal point of balance. Alternatively like said above reducing the contribution of healer and tank also can reach the optimal point. Both options have adverse effect tho. Option 1 would make 4 mans and 24 mans less balanced as the buffs do more or less and would make solo play for utility dps classes more difficult. Option 2 would make solo play for healers and tanks more boring and difficult.

I found that optimal point using an excel spreadsheet and goal seek once and will within the week use it to find it again (but i am on my phone at the moment doing napkin math versions of what i had done months ago) just to show what I'm talking about has a solution and to invite discussion.

I would in the meantime invite people to consider this and do the math themselves whether in excel or by hand (goal seek in excel is much better than by hand btw) but my point is this: selfish dps should not do the most Rdps at high skill percentiles. If they do all utility dps classes will be undesirable across all skill levels

The game optimally should be balanced in a way that at high percentile play 3 utility dps and one selfish is optimal and as skill levels decrease more selfish dps perform the best rdps. Where that percentile line falls where 4 selfish should out do having a support tho is a matter of opinion. This is not to exclude them (selfish dps focused classes) from playing in meta content but to include as best as possible every class in meta content.

I frequently hear people ask for #### selfish class to be buffed so its rdps is the highest within its group. This in fact seems to be the normal opinion. And my point is that is not actually healthy for the balance of the game. Asking for a selfish dps to be buffed for other various reasons is fine. But selfish dps do not need to be the top RDPS and asking for it as if its the expected norm should not be accepted as a valid reason.

Do note that if you extend my initial example to 4 dps with utility their compounding buffs outdo the 4 selfish dps scenario. This is intentional to again show a bad side of this balance where mixed parties are the worst. This shouldn't happen either and the solutions i propose above can in fact yield a scenario where even including compounding buffs 4 support dps is not as optimal as 2 and 2. Just gotta play with the numbers enough.

This thread also was intended to combat people that constantly complain about balance
Balance is a very very fluid and living thing in a game like this, especially as sub stats scale differently for different classes in terms of effectiveness cycles into each patch tier (crit becomes god, but some classes get even more added benefit from crit and group crit)
The above is just one of the reasons, and one of the things developers consider and math out constantly to theoretically balance a game.
And doing this while maintaining class diversity without homogenizing? Is real real tough. Put on top of that making the class fun to play and raid fights balanced to the classes mechanics... it gets complicated.

Personally I think my Main class deserves a bit more rDPS within melee tier (Ninja) BUT i wouldn't even ask for it right now. Because I am quite happy with how close to balanced regardless the game currently is with the only current minor flaw in my eyes being ranged lagging jsut a bit too far behind. And of course wanting a class changed for fun purposes or playability purposes (like how monk still needs to be changed and many Ninjas like myself are unhappy with the shift away from blade play) is a whole different beast, and when changes like that are done the above damage output balancing has to be reconsidered as well. Thats my opinion and my bias, but i hope you can abstract that bias and see it separately from my initial post.

Thanks if you manage to muscle through all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

Optimally we want a scenario where 1 selfish and 3 utiliy dps yield the best results by a mild margin over 2 and 2

---

So... You basically want StB balance back? Where every raid was Bard + Dragoon + Ninja + [Selfish DPS] (Or often, SMN because they did pDPS equivalent to that of selfish DPS but also had utility and rDPS boosts too... Like they still do!)

The "Ideal" scenario is where any 4 jobs can be used together and be close enough to not matter in terms of DPS.

This means, 4 selfish DPS = 3 selfish DPS + 1 support = 2 selfish DPS + 2 support = 1 selfish DPS + 3 support = 4 support.

Why? Since that means that people can play the job that they like the most without having to adjust based on what other people in their raid are playing/want to play.

It however, can be tricky to balance around since the more support DPS that are in a party, the bigger factor that Tank + Healer DPS makes, which can be unhealthy for the overall game balance (See: Healers complaining about being "Green DPS" instead of Healers)

Furthermore, there's something to be said about smaller groups too. Dungeons exist and form a significant part of the game (Due to MSQ as well as Tomestone/Materia grinding). The more you lower support jobs pDPS in favour of making it up with rDPS in 8 man parties, the worse they perform in 4 man content (As well as in PuG content where you find duplicate jobs whose rDPS boosts won't stack)

Such additional aspects to job balancing are why ShB has skewed more towards removing much of the rDPS boosts that existed in the game (Though, many still exist and with some still being on "Selfish DPS" jobs like SMN, DRG, MNK and RDM not just the typical "Support" jobs like BRD, DNC, NIN... Though, this largely depends on your definition of "Support" vs "Selfish" and thus whether you think that only BLM, MCH and SAM are "Selfish" DPS due to their complete lack of utility/rDPS boosts)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

So... You basically want StB balance back? Where every raid was Bard + Dragoon + Ninja + [Selfish DPS] (Or often, SMN because they did pDPS equivalent to that of selfish DPS but also had utility and rDPS boosts too... Like they still do!)

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

The "Ideal" scenario is where any 4 jobs can be used together and be close enough to not matter in terms of DPS.

---

Yes, but with caveats being that proper group diverse composition yields some rewards and having all roles also yields rewards. Last patch for example if not for the role bonuses and duplicate class reductions a team of 4 SMNS probs would have been the best and safest to play in any fight. Thats unhealthy. A meta will always exist. but the nature of the meta and the balance as i suggest above will yield your ideal scenario most effectively.

You assumed much beyond the scope of my post. I spoke of maximized dps. not viability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

No.

---

Well, that was the "Optimal DPS is 1 selfish + 3 support"

Where max DPS was using BLM or SAM plus the aforementioned 3 supports, it just required a really good BLM/SAM to work and was far easier to do near enough DPS with SMN instead (While having an extra Swiftcast Raise to boot)

Quote:

---

A meta will always exist. but the nature of the meta and the balance as i suggest above will yield your ideal scenario most effectively.

---

It won't. Your way of balancing will push people towards the aforementioned StB meta, where people will use the comp with the most bang for the buck, not the max DPS one but the one that provides the highest DPS without requiring as much skill (With the max DPS comps being used only by those who do speed clears)

Quote:

---

You assumed much beyond the scope of my post. I spoke of maximized dps. not viability.

---

Maximized DPS and viability go hand in hand. Since viability is determined by the players on which jobs fit into the "Meta" which is determined by maximized DPS. For example, situations where people would decline BLM's, RDM's, MCH's and SAM's for raids during StB because they weren't "Good Enough" (It wasn't universal, but it did happen). Could you clear all content with non-"Meta" jobs? Yes. But some people didn't care about that, in favour of "Max DPS".

[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

Well, that was the "Optimal DPS is 1 selfish + 3 support"

Where max DPS was using BLM or SAM plus the aforementioned 3 supports, it just required a really good BLM/SAM to work and was far easier to do near enough DPS with SMN instead (While having an extra Swiftcast Raise to boot)

---

Read what I said again. I will not continue this conversation if you try to assume things tangential to my post.
I said 1 selfish 3 support
IE
1(SAM,BLM,MCH) 3 (ANY COMBINATION OF EVERYTHING ELSE of which there are 7) So proportionally. 1 or 2 slots to the selfish dps that make up 30% of the dps is fair with 1 slot being the closest mark.
and to quote myself
"This is not to exclude them (selfish dps focused classes) from playing in meta content but to include as best as possible every class in meta content."
"Disclaimer. I may like certain Classes. I don't deny my bias and i know many external factors effect balance (mobility, defensive and healing utility etc.) This isn't some end all statement."
of course there are other factors like the ridiculousness caused by tank stances and shadewalker.

I am not saying this because i want ninja buffed. Please do what I asked:"abstract that bias and see it separately from my initial post." or at least the numbers in my post.

I also talked about this ONLY looking at the damage to conclude ONLY one thing. That selfish dps should not in a vacuum contribute the most rDPS. if that occurs mathematically they will be the most chosen class when people pick classes with damage in mind. especially since most utility classes literally offer only utility in the form of... more dmg. because consequently if selfish DPS have the best RDPS at max percentile. it follows immediately that they will have the best dps at ANY percentile. while that does not hold true mathematically when an rDPS focused class has the highest rDPS contribution at maximum percentile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

It won't. Your way of balancing will push people towards the aforementioned StB meta, where people will use the comp with the most bang for the buck, not the max DPS one but the one that provides the highest DPS without requiring as much skill (With the max DPS comps being used only by those who do speed clears)

---

Why wont it? Prove it then. Give me some numbers that say otherwise. You are guessing at something without any backing to your statement just because you disagree with some portion of mine. Why does what i say irk you so? This is exactly what I'm talking about People blindly making statements that just don't actually have any bearing. I left things un mathed completely to encourage people to math things for themselves. go try to prove your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

Maximized DPS and viability go hand in hand. Since viability is determined by the players on which jobs fit into the "Meta" which is determined by maximized DPS. For example, situations where people would decline BLM's, RDM's, MCH's and SAM's for raids during StB because they weren't "Good Enough" (It wasn't universal, but it did happen). Could you clear all content with non-"Meta" jobs? Yes. But some people didn't care about that, in favour of "Max DPS".

---

That's just entirely incorrect. Viability and Meta are absolutely separate Ideas. Do you know what Meta means?
Maximized DPS is talking about a team of all 100 percentile players. Viability generally includes teams of grey parsing 25th or lower players. When i talk about perfect class play you have to look at the numbers. And when i talk about balancing you have to look at the effect skill levels have on the changes of value rDPS focused classes provide.

It seems to me i should define things further
Maximized dps is talking about what things would look like at perfect play.
Selfish dps refers only to dps classes that do nothing for the party beyond already common role abilities.
Raid dps classes for the context of my argument is disregarding all other forms of utility that doesn't directly contribute to damage. of course these matter when making ultimate decisions about balance. but when looking at dps alone they do not.
Some classes considered "utility" classes by others actually carry no utility beyond dps Utility. For example right now Ninja benefits a party in no way other than through his trick attack and self heals. Feint should be disregarded as it is a role skill. MNK on the other hand with healing boosters does offer additional party utility in the form of easing the healers jobs for example. But my initial post is NOT examining these factors. it is solely looking at balancing before such factors are accounted for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

Read what I said again. I will not continue this conversation if you try to assume things tangential to my post.

---

It is not assumed. This is fact. This is what it was like in Stormblood.

The max DPS WAS 1 selfish and 3 support. But people had better overall success with 4 support because it was less skill reliant (Since, co-ordinating is easy, you just push your 60s/90s CD's every 60s/90s. Optimizing the selfish DPS's uptime especially during burst windows was hard and ensuring that said selfish player NEVER made any mistakes in the content because that would mean death and weakness from a raise)

It just so happens that due to the way that the different supports provided support in different ways, it ended up being the jobs that synergized with each others supports that became meta. I.e. Bard was the best rDPS job, so you wanted one of them and DRG had Piercing buff that helped the Bard's pDPS and then NIN was always there because Trick Attack was the most broken skill in the game.

At best you occasionally saw speed clears swap the DRG for a SMN for the extra magical damage debuff to support the BLM

Quote:

---

I said 1 selfish 3 support
IE
1(SAM,BLM,MCH) 3 (ANY COMBINATION OF EVERYTHING ELSE of which there are 7) So proportionally. 1 or 2 slots to the selfish dps that make up 30% of the dps is fair with 1 slot being the closest mark.
and to quote myself

---

But you have to remember that not all "Support" jobs support in equivalent ways.

In no world would you want to run a BLM with MNK, RDM and DNC as your supports for example. Since MNK and RDM only buff PHYSICAL damage while DNC's pDPS relies on using many weaponskills/spells which BLM's slow casts do not fit well with.

Hence, we would go back to a meta of the jobs that synergize best, much like the old DRG + BRD + NIN combo.

Quote:

---

I also talked about this ONLY looking at the damage to conclude ONLY one thing. That selfish dps should not in a vacuum contribute the most rDPS

---

This particular point does not need to look at compositions at all though.

It's common sense that jobs that sacrifice pDPS for rDPS should not thus have to deal less overall rDPS than jobs who's rDPS is equal to their pDPS.

The only time composition would matter for such argument, is when you try and look at what rDPS is being provided by the support jobs depending on the composition.

I.e. If a "Selfish" DPS does 15000 DPS and a "Support" DPS does 13000 DPS and buffs everyone else by 10% with Tanks that deal 10000 DPS and healers that deal 6000 DPS

Then a Selfish DPS's rDPS is simply a flat 15000.

However, a support DPS's rDPS can range from 20700 (With 3x Selfish DPS) to 20100 (With 3x Support) with this range increasing with a larger gap between selfish and support pDPS as well as increases in the boost they provide to other party members.

Though, it is not always the case that jobs lose pDPS for rDPS, as people have noted jobs like RDM have had pDPS penalties for utility such as "Vercure/Verraise" despite their lack of actual worth in most parties.

Quote:

---

Why wont it? Prove it then.

---

Look at every expansion prior to ShB.

Quote:

---

That's just entirely incorrect. Viability and Meta are absolutely separate Ideas. Do you know what Meta means?

---

Viability and Meta are 99.99% of cases the same thing. Outside of some terrible balancing that makes a job literally unable to perform in content (I.e. ARR Warrior before it got buffed).

Viability is being able to complete content.

Meta is the player controlled "Ideal" composition. Which, some players, will hold as a set in stone viability scale. If a job is not meta, it is not considered viable by these people and thus would get excluded from parties (Even if it is still possible to clear the content using said non-meta job)

Quote:

---

Maximized DPS is talking about a team of all 100 percentile players.

---

Maximized DPS is only compositions.

Since, all talk of balance tends to use a situation where players play perfectly. Since that is the only tangible data to use. It is impossible to calculate DPS losses from "Lower skill levels" and apply them to data to get meaningful results.

This is where the divergence of "Max DPS" compositions and "Meta" compositions comes in. In perfect scenarios, there will be some compositions that will push out the highest numbers. However, these don't usually become meta due to the vast majority of people's inability to perform perfectly. Even the highest skill players will often shy away from the Max DPS compositions until they've practiced the encounters hundreds of times, instead favouring the "Meta" compositions that are easier to play and deal good numbers with.

Quote:

---

And when i talk about balancing you have to look at the effect skill levels have on the changes of value rDPS focused classes provide.

---

Skill levels affect the value of pDPS to the same extent or more than rDPS. Selfish classes often do far worse than support classes at lower skill levels, due to selfish classes having to perform all of their DPS themselves. While support classes still get a portion of their rDPS done even if they themselves are not performing well (So long as you can "Co-ordinate" pressing your CD's on CD)

It is why jobs that can do "Max DPS" are often not widely used (Typically, this is seen with BLM which requires intimate knowledge of an encounter to be able to position correctly so as to have good uptime. Without this, a BLM's damage can become absolute garbage)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

It is not assumed. This is fact.

---

You are instantiating a limitation to knock it down. I spoke of that setup being generally the best, NOT of the the specific stormblood scenario singularly. Your belligerence in insisting you know what I'm talking about more than I do is exhausting. Stop assuming you know what I'm referring to when my words are plain and read the words

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

But you have to remember that not all "Support" jobs support in equivalent ways.

---

Please again refer to my first post where i specifically frame the context as DISREGARDING such other factors for the sake of simplifying the portion of the argument I was making.
I DONT CARE about the other support effects that aren't dmg because THIS POST WASNT ABOUT BALANCING those support effects. IT IS ABOUT BALANCE as an idea at numbers alone. You are so far off context here you are either intentionally derailing or incapable of understanding the scope I applied and limited my first post too. I specifically omitted class specific content because I'm not talking about anything class specific. I ONLY EVER HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DAMAGE BUFFS and their effect on balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

In no world ...

---

None of the rest of that statement matters in the scope of my argument. I AM NOT TALKING about specifics here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

It's common sense that jobs that sacrifice pDPS for rDPS should not thus have to deal less overall rDPS than jobs who's rDPS is equal to their pDPS.

---

......Thats my whole point. That its not common sense to these forums. Lots of places I've read someone saying something very close to 'pDps classes would be worthless if they didnt contribute more rDPS than utility classes'
That is the only thing i am trying to argue against. So you agree with my conclusion but still felt the need to argue with me about stuff i didn't even mention? What the heck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

The only time composition would matter ...

---

You pull a bunch of numbers here out of thin air. Its meaningless ground those statements. There is no class in this game that has ever gotten anywhere close 6000 bonus rdps which is what your numbers loosely suggest. Where the heck are you coming up with numbers like 20700???

And then here you go coming up with your own arbitrary semantic definitions for statements Please use English not your own made up version of what words mean. Lets clean this up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

Viability and Meta are 99.99% of cases the same thing. ...

---

No they are not.
"vi·a·bil·i·ty
/ˌvīəˈbilədē/
ability to work successfully."

IE viability refers to a job being able to clear content in the context of ffxiv.

"What does Meta mean in gaming?
most effective tactics available
In the world of gaming, meta is used in two ways. Meta can be used as an acronym for “most effective tactics available,” and calling something “meta” means that it's an effective way to achieve the goal of the game, whether it's to beat other players or beat the game itself."
Alternatively Meta as a latin root means: above or beyond.

Regardless When i say Meta i mean: Most effective tactic. And my point is because there are 3 selfish dps and the rest have utility of varied sorts for balancing purposes the Meta should be a 1 selfish 3 support setup. Not any specific setup, not some specific set of classes. Im talking about meta setup. not "The meta team composition" You keep insisting im talking about a specific team here. I'm not. Im talking about balancing the core general distribution of damage BEFORE taking into account anything that makes classes unique and balancing outward from there. And my only purpose in doing so as I said before, which you even agreed with is:"selfish dps do not need to be the top RDPS and asking for it as if its the expected norm"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

Viability is being able to complete content.

---

Yup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

Meta is the player controlled "Ideal" composition...

---

Nope. Not within the context of my argument.
And not in general either. A Meta comp is a very specific definition of 'Most Effective Tactic Available'. Its not some Ideal, and it has nothing to do with viability. META is about the tip top best setup. And in the context of my argument when I use META im talking about the Optimal combination of selfish and utility classes and how to balance class choice the best a 1 selfish 3 utility Meta would be ideal and enable more classes across the spectrum to feel more equally needed. Balance should make a meta similar so more classes are valued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

Maximized DPS is only compositions.

---

Nope.
Max dps is max dps. IE The best DPS.
When i use this word im talking about the DPS.
NOT the compositions. And MAXIMIZED directly suggest PERFECT play because in terms of numbers the MAX is PERFECT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

Since, all talk of balance tends to use a situation where players play perfectly. Since that is the only tangible data to use. It is impossible to calculate DPS losses from "Lower skill levels" and apply them to data to get meaningful results.

---

Thats just frankly untrue.
It is very obvious and easy to see with the data available. The worse a utility players companions play the worse benefit the utility provides. Data is not even necessary to see that. If i give people a 10% bonus. And those people perform at 25th percentile my 10% will be less than if those people performed at 50th percentile. That just how it works. 10% of 75 is bigger than 10% of 25. and thats meaningful result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalise

Skill levels affect the value of pDPS to the same extent or more than rDPS. Selfish classes often do far worse than support classes at lower skill levels, due to selfish classes having to perform all of their DPS themselves. While support classes still get a portion of their rDPS done even if they themselves are not performing well (So long as you can "Co-ordinate" pressing your CD's on CD)

---

This is false.
BLM has varied damage because the skill for the class ranges greatly as players become more familiar with fights.
But the player is in control of their own performance.
When i talk about skill level I talk about the coordination and skill of the whole team.

When a selfish dps plays at low skill lvl the only thing effecting his output is himself BUT he also hurts the rDPS of the utility classes on the team. Nothing external forces him to perform worse. But his play externally impacts the rDPS of other classes.
When a utility plays at low skill level not only is his output neutered but he doesn't get benefit from his teams efforts which compounds the loss on any failures his teammates might also have. This is very very easily seen. The lower the percentile OF THE TEAM the lower the average output rDPS gained from trick, or embolden, or steps whatever. AND everytime another support is added to the group it increases the risk reward of the group because the maximized dps requires cooperation. When a selfish does his thing his dps is entirely self reliant. Very simply buff classes have more of their output effected by their team than selfish do. In the absence of buff classes selfish dps just do their own thing. The moment a buff/utility job is added to the mix things get trickier to optimize and risk and reward should increase.

But my whole point just wraps up anyways in what you said. : "It's common sense that jobs that sacrifice pDPS for rDPS should not thus have to deal less overall rDPS than jobs who's rDPS is equal to their pDPS."

Because I agree with you there. They should be able to deal MORE RDPS but generally should deal LESS in practice because it is difficult to play perfect AND get a team to play perfect.
But based on the people i see most often in these forums that notion is not common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darsien

That was a lot of words and non-real data to talk about your opinion on how class balance should be. Your last 2 lines would of sufficed and saved you a lot of time.



As the presenter of the post, you shouldn't be asking your viewers to do the work for you.

---

I agree with you generally (about the evidence) but the response is precisely why i didn't just post outright with the math. Even with numbers people like to argue pointlessly so i wanted to provide a very limited and specific amount (both math and scope wise) so people could think about the few cases i presented.
And the length words were intended because i knew if i wasn't very clear about this not being an attack on selfish dps that people would come and shout. thats precisely what happened the first time i mentioned this chain of thought in a ninja thread. Most in the thread supported or ignored me,but a few went of on very random side conquests to point out why i was wrong and it devolved to length anyways. They did that anyways this time again tho so oh well.

But no if i wrote it more concisely i think even more people would have tried their hand at tangential pointless opposition sadly. And I did specifically say i would provide further data in time, I just want people to consider the few very simple cases i presented first and their implications.

Length alone also tends to weed out the passerby that doesn't really care.

You should specify that you're not using fflogs definition of rDPS.

rDPS on fflogs and the one that is often used nowadays when we say " x class rDPS is too low" is the whole contribution of a class, not the only the small buff part like before. With the new definition, everyone's rDPS (=complete final contribution) should be roughly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karshan

You should specify that you're not using fflogs definition of rDPS.

rDPS on fflogs and the one that is often used nowadays when we say " x class rDPS is too low" is the whole contribution of a class, not the only the small buff part like before. With the new definition, everyone's rDPS (=complete final contribution) should be roughly the same.

---

Your probably right. What is the term generally used to describe the buff portion solely right now if there is one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

You are instantiating a limitation to knock it down. I spoke of that setup being generally the best, NOT of the the specific stormblood scenario singularly.

---

I'm pointing out that the "Optimal Scenario" that you envisioned, has existed and has not promoted the point about composition versatility that you claimed.

In StB we had your "Max DPS is 1 Selfish + 3 Support" optimal scenario. What did it lead to? It lead to a meta where people wanted just 4 Supports and non-meta jobs were shunned.

This is a very real aspect to balancing, cry as you might "But I only want to look at the numbers!" the fact of the matter is that balancing jobs goes beyond simply numbers.

Quote:

---

I DONT CARE about the other support effects that aren't dmg because THIS POST WASNT ABOUT BALANCING those support effects. IT IS ABOUT BALANCE as an idea at numbers alone. You are so far off context here you are either intentionally derailing or incapable of understanding the scope I applied and limited my first post too. I specifically omitted class specific content because I'm not talking about anything class specific. I ONLY EVER HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DAMAGE BUFFS and their effect on balance.

---

If you want to stop telling me I'm off context and actually read what you've been replying to, you'll note that I pointed out that your "Optimal Scenario" of 1 selfish and 3 support DPS was being critiziced by me as a poor goal.

As I mentioned, the ideal scenario is any 4 DPS jobs should be able to play together, irregardless of whether they are "Selfish" or "Support" (Barring things like duplicate classes) while being within a close enough DPS output so as to not matter.

This links directly back to meta and viability, because of the SITUATION WITH StB WHERE WE HAD A META THAT SHUNNED NON-META JOBS FROM BEING PLAYED IN CONTENT

Meaning that it was harder to do content on said non-meta jobs because people would refuse you a place in their party. I.e. It is not as viable to do the content on said jobs because you couldn't get into a party to do it.

You say that your way of balancing would achieve my ideal scenario where any combination of Support and Selfish DPS jobs can perform nigh equally well, whilst also saying that a situation that is exactly the same as what we had in StB is the "Optimal scenario" and disregard the fact that in StB there WAS issues with balance BECAUSE of the way the optimal party compositions ended up being.

Quote:

---

...Thats my whole point. That its not common sense to these forums. Lots of places I've read someone saying something very close to 'pDps classes would be worthless if they didnt contribute more rDPS than utility classes'

---

The issue here, is that these sorts of statements aren't entirely related to rDPS related "Utility"

These statements are usually brought up in regards to non-DPS related utility.

I.e. If RDM and BLM did the same rDPS. Why would you ever bring a BLM when RDM has Vercure and Verraise?

Quote:

---

You pull a bunch of numbers here out of thin air. Its meaningless ground those statements. There is no class in this game that has ever gotten anywhere close 6000 bonus rdps which is what your numbers loosely suggest. Where the heck are you coming up with numbers like 20700???

---

It was example numbers. To illustrate a point.

With the example numbers (Tanks dealing 10000 DPS each, Healers dealing 6000 DPS each, Selfish DPS dealing 15000 pDPS each and Support DPS dealing 13000 pDPS each) and Supports being a 10% buff to other players (Far in excess of current boosts purely for example)

20700 comes from the fact that the buffs to other jobs (10000 + 10000 + 6000 + 6000 + 15000 + 15000 + 15000)/10 = 7700

Plus their pDPS (13000)

Equals 20700 rDPS (Total DPS)

The further extrapolation from this (If you bothered to do the math, like you suggest other people do for you)

Is in this situation, if you pulled down Support pDPS to a point where 3 Selfish + 1 Supports is on par with 4 Selfish (You know, relating back to my previous point about all comp types being on par) then you'd have a case where any more than 1 Support is progressively worse.

Using example numbers, Support pDPS would have to go down to 7300 in order to achieve an rDPS of 15000 (The same as the 3 Selfish DPS in the party). However in doing so, it means that the rDPS of a Support in a 2 Support team would be 14230 and in a 3 Support team that would be 13460 and a 4 Support team would be 12690

Meaning that in this scenario, a 4 Support team would be dealing 70070 total DPS (All 8 players combined) compared to a 0 or 1 Support team that would be dealing 92000 total DPS (All 8 players combined). Approximately 25% less damage overall, which would be significant enough to make people shun those group compositions.

Of course, this is all exemplified using an inflated support boost figure, with more realistic figures things will be closer. It is however, an example of the difficulties of attempting to balance pure pDPS vs rDPS whilst trying to make compositions not boil down to a single optimal set up that becomes meta at the cost of others.

Quote:

---

A Meta comp is a very specific definition of 'Most Effective Tactic Available'. Its not some Ideal, and it has nothing to do with viability. META is about the tip top best setup.

---

This is just laughably wrong.

The Most Effective Tactic Available, in video game (And specifically FFXIV) context is not the "Maximal DPS Tactic".

It is the Most Effective one. I.e. The one that more easily performs the best.

For example, look at the state of the game in Stormblood.

The Max DPS Tactic was 1 Selfish and 3 Support (Typically a BLM or a SAM being buffed to heck)

The Most Effective Tactic was 4 Support.

Why? Because it was significantly easier to perform well with 4 Support and thus would put out more consistently higher numbers than the "Max DPS" tactic would outside of paper.

Simply because, "Co-ordination" in FFXIV surmounts to pressing your CD's on CD.

Imagine pulling numbers out of your ass for stuff when we have access to actual data.

What a timeline.

Okay, so, while the dataset's small, it's actually looking like an interesting tier. Casters are absolutely dominating some fights, but on another, melee are absolutely wrecking house. Which job is the best is actually -fight dependant- in terms of raid dps contribution.

THIS, right here, is a desirable situation for casters and melee; a properly balanced mmo won't have one class consistantly on top on all fights, then another, then another, in lockstep order. You should expect to see variation where one class will be strong at one fight, but another will be strong at another. This makes class choice simultaneously meaningful, while also maximizing viability. Make it that there's one fight where ranged DPS destroy the house and you'll have dps balance pretty much nailed down perfectly--we're very close to, but not quite at, the ideal.

Another thing to consider is that in today's world, raid dps contribution isn't theoretical, it's now measured. We know how much contribution each job's buffs are, on a case by case basis. In past expansions, it was not measured, and so we literally guessed at it. Having access to this information has changed what the meta looks like because we no longer relegate buff strength to the theoretical; we know selfish DPS are strong and by exactly how much; we know how strong healer duos can be and we can analyse this a lot better than before.

So, we've gone past talking about theoretical raid dps contributions; we can actually directly compare buff strengths with data, not theorycraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruntler

...

---

Physical data is still very hard to analyze. I've presented this exact same argument before with actual data last tier. And I calculated it specifically 4 different percentile gaps so it took a TON of work. Unfortunately i presented that information on the 14th page of a thread already in progress and although some people agreed with me the result was nearly exactly the same as Kalise's outcry where tangential arguments were created based on outlying data points. Once again as you can see above Kalise is inserting her own meaning into the original things i said and changing the core subject i created this thread to discuss. It's nice to see her use some math, but like i said in my post one scenario presented doesn't give the whole picture and Excel spreadsheets calculations are necessary to find the percent wise balance point that lends itself to proposed balanced team proportion of 1 selfish 3 utility.

So there is still absolutely value in theoretical or baseline analysis. First because baseline analysis allows you to develop a fair plan before looking at the variations in extensive datapoints, AND allows you to make judgements before and after utility and what makes classes unique is taken into consideration.

My post isn't trying to combat or change the meta. Its a critique on how we think about the meta. Currently many people see Class A is underperforming or overperforming and ask for a Buff or Nerf and usually its also tied to how players imagine that class should do in. For Example i can't remember the last time i met anyone who didn't think BLM should be the end all best RDS at 95th percentile and up. If you ask them why a whole can of worms, lack of mobility, rng, no raise, cast bars, memorization crops up and you can't target any core reasoning even tho in essence when all those reasons are stacked on top of eachother its because the class is difficult. But then in the same breath people say "The game shouldn't be balanced on difficulty" This is a problem. So we need to have a core reason for these statements.

And in the melee role, caster role, and ranged role it is still commonly accepted that NIN, DNC, and RDM should have the lowest RDPS for whatever reason. They should have the lowest Pdps for sure. but in actuality for the game to be balanced they should have the Highest AND the lowest RDPS (highest at 90th percentile up, lowest IMO percentile 50 ish and down) Those lines however are opinion and could be moved up or down the spectrum. But my point being I can't tell you how many times someone has told me that SAM should have the best RDPS in ANY percentile among the melee because it has no utility.

The only way to effectively have that conversation is to show people why that underlying thinking is wrong. And it's wrong because if selfish dps within each role are in fact the best it entirely disenfranchises all 7 utility roles. Those roles may still be viable tho of course. With a proper balance all 10 roles will be desirable, and with proper tweaks to the baseline a solution set can be found where a 1 selfish and 3 utility and at a distribution generally of 30% selfish and 70% utility thats the best match.

Which is exactly why i titled my thread like I did. Im not here to analyze the numbers as they stand nor make a statement of who should be on top where and why. I dont want people to just look at the numbers and say "muh this class needs to be stronger cause it has no utility" because its not that simple.

Im here cause i want people to think about the theory behind proper game balance and break the current accepted for a long time justification that selfish dps should just simply be the best. Not everyone thinks that way, but in my perusal of the forums over the years that trend is the most common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

The only way to effectively have that conversation is to show people why that underlying thinking is wrong. And it's wrong because if selfish dps within each role are in fact the best it entirely disenfranchises all 7 utility roles. Those roles may still be viable tho of course. With a proper balance all 10 roles will be desirable, and with proper tweaks to the baseline a solution set can be found where a 1 selfish and 3 utility and at a distribution generally of 30% selfish and 70% utility thats the best match.

---

Basically, why have utility at all if it's not going to be useful in any way whatsoever. I've always agreed-defensive utility is overvalued by the devs and offensive utility is essentially non-existent if the jobs who don't have it perform better even after their adps is adjusted to rdps. And if we, as a community, are holding on to the saying that class balance isn't based on difficulty, then most of the points given as to why they should be are invalid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kajv95

Basically, why have utility at all if it's not going to be useful in any way whatsoever. I've always agreed-defensive utility is overvalued by the devs and offensive utility is essentially non-existent if the jobs who don't have it perform better even after their adps is adjusted to rdps. And if we, as a community, are holding on to the saying that class balance isn't based on difficulty, then most of the points given as to why they should be are invalid.

---

Definately agree with your final statements. We definately do need diversity and utility tho. Im not a fan of homogenization either. Dmg at base spread tho should be evaluated before utility is of any form is considered, made healthy, and then adjusted to account for utility.

The largest problem FFXIV is facing is the fact that we have so many party-wide buffs flying around that the jobs based around having those can't reasonably be powerful without outright deleting selfish dps. Ranged physical dps can't become strong because combined with other jobs with dps utility, they'll start outclassing the selfish. We can't balance the physical ranged around having better personal dps either because then atleast half the melees will feel invalidated due to them having to work more for uptime, and casters will feel shafted due to, you know, having cast times.

Pretty much the entire game would require a rebalance if we want "real" balance, so the party shackle bonus if the best we've got for now, quite frankly.

Though I would personally prefer living as a bowmage for the time being if that's what it takes. I like playing as a Bard because of the snazzy fukkin outfits, the bow and the "job fantasy" associated with it, atleast let me be powerful if you're going to take away the fantasy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kajv95

The largest problem FFXIV is facing is the fact that we have so many party-wide buffs flying around that the jobs based around having those can't reasonably be powerful without outright deleting selfish dps. Ranged physical dps can't become strong because combined with other jobs with dps utility, they'll start outclassing the selfish. We can't balance the physical ranged around having better personal dps either because then atleast half the melees will feel invalidated due to them having to work more for uptime, and casters will feel shafted due to, you know, having cast times.

Pretty much the entire game would require a rebalance if we want "real" balance, so the party shackle bonus if the best we've got for now, quite frankly.

Though I would personally prefer living as a bowmage for the time being if that's what it takes. I like playing as a Bard because of the snazzy fukkin outfits, the bow and the "job fantasy" associated with it, atleast let me be powerful if you're going to take away the fantasy.

---

Very true! I feel tho that generally party wide buffs are better than specific buffs (such as the old terrible DRG BRD event) and they do make the game more interesting. That being said one thing I would LOVE is if those buffs were designed in such a way that they couldn't compound on top of eachother. I know that would likely be a homogenization, but it would be a good idea. It would limit the value of properly aligning things too in fights... making tactical unity less important, but i do think it would be healthy for The balance.

Alternatively (although it would require some serious recoding) all manuever could stay the same but be designed to keep dmges separate. I.E. if NIN trick attack is up and a Crit Boost from some source is up the game could be aware of whether the crit would have occured without the crit buff, and if so Trick augments the damage, if not that bonus crit dmg does NOT hit for the 10%. To do this code would have to be written something like follows during the damage calculation (very psuedo code):
New Var $BONUS DMG
If($dmg.type == 'buffed')
{
new var $Base dmg
New var $Buff damage
$Buff damage = $dmg/buff.type
$dmg = dmg- $Buff damage
$BONUS DMG += $Buff damage
}
Run that per each buff with some refining (would need to also be occuring i the portion of the function where buff is applied) and you could pool all singular additive effects from buffs into the bonus dmg so they don't compound.

I could make this better obviously. I do code work myself. this is very rough so i can go to sleep :D don't get mad at me if my sleepingess made this terrible I'm just showing it could be done.

The issue with damages buff is that they depend on the skill of your party in order to be decent.
Give Trick Attack to a pug group and more often than not the difference will not be that huge, on the opposite, give Trick attack to a decent and organized party and they'll squeeze the most out of it.

it's the same reason as to why peoples thought that dancer was bad at the start of ShB even with rdps. But as time went on and peoples became better and dancer was then one of the best physical ranged you could ask for when trying to do a speedkill.

That imo is why devs are kinda afraid to increase/decrease some party buffs. Because if you raise it in order to be better for the average green parser, then suddenly it becomes amazing and OP for the top-end group, which can be an issue because then it demands to rebalance new encounters around that in order for them to still be challenging... Which nullifies the whole point of the previous buffs. :D

If the OP's main point is that classes that require more work should have a slight advantage in rDPS then I agree. However the hard part comes with how much harder are we talking here and how much advantage in rDPS?

Basically the argument is that as a selfish dps like SAM just needs 1 player(them self) to get 95% however as a DNC you will need at least 1 more player to perform as well. In the case of 5.0 NIN your trick attack required more coordination and had more impact so you'll need at least 3 other players (3 dps) to be top tier to pad your rDPS.

TL;DR Selfish dps only requires 1 player's skill while support dps requires multiple players therefore support dps require more work and the reward (rDPS) should be greater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyNeko

If the OP's main point is that classes that require more work should have a slight advantage in rDPS then I agree. However the hard part comes with how much harder are we talking here and how much advantage in rDPS?

Basically the argument is that as a selfish dps like SAM just needs 1 player(them self) to get 95% however as a DNC you will need at least 1 more player to perform as well. In the case of 5.0 NIN your trick attack required more coordination and had more impact so you'll need at least 3 other players (3 dps) to be top tier to pad your rDPS.

TL;DR Selfish dps only requires 1 player's skill while support dps requires multiple players therefore support dps require more work and the reward (rDPS) should be greater.

---

as i see it (and at least how i read the op's point, though sorry if i'm wrong on that) its not so much that it requires more work and should therefore be more rewarding but that people argue (and yes they do, repeatedly) support dps (so every dps class with any kind of damage buff or whatever) even in the proposed perfect "everyone performs like a god on steroids" scenario should not be able to out dps a "pure" dps, even if all they have on the pure dps are actual damage buffs.

Basically "if mch does 15k dps than bard at best should be allowed to do a combined personal+group dps of 14,5k." Not because of things like armys paeon though, purely based on "bard has damage buffs, mch has not" because so they say if bard could reach the level of mch (or nin the level of samurai or whatever class you desire...) than no one would take the pure class anymore.

the argument against this and which i believe it is he's trying to make now is that if even under perfect circumstances the "support" still offers less dps than the "pure" dps than than the "support" in fact will allways offer less dps-> therefore under perfect circumstances indeed the "support" should offer more dps in exchange for offering less under not perfect circumstances. (mind you, "more" doesn't necessarely mean "a lot more" or whatever, just that you shouldn't intentionally balance them weaker even under perfect circumstances)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akiudo

as i see it (and at least how i read the op's point, though sorry if i'm wrong on that) its not so much that it requires more work and should therefore be more rewarding but that people argue (and yes they do, repeatedly) support dps (so every dps class with any kind of damage buff or whatever) even in the proposed perfect "everyone performs like a god on steroids" scenario should not be able to out dps a "pure" dps, even if all they have on the pure dps are actual damage buffs.

Basically "if mch does 15k dps than bard at best should be allowed to do a combined personal+group dps of 14,5k. not because of things like armys paeon though, purely based on "bard has damage buffs, mch has not" because so they say if bard could reach the level of mch (or nin the level of samurai or whatever class you desire...) than no one would take the pure class anymore.

the argument against this and which i believe it is he's trying to make now is that if even under perfect circumstances the "support" still offers less dps than the "pure" dps than than the "support" in fact will allways offer less dps-> therefore under perfect circumstances indeed the "support" should offer more dps in exchange for offering less under not perfect circumstances. (mind you, "more" doesn't necessarely mean "a lot more" or whatever, just that you shouldn't intentionally balance them weaker even under perfect circumstances)

---

That is exactly it yes. Tho the previous poster was pretty close to my intent as well.