History repeats itself: Time for the Great Archer Nerf of 2011

[Physic]

Yeah, we're supposed to fight 15-20 levels higher but those mobs don't give more SP, SP caps at +10 :/

this is honestly a mistake of the new SP system, one of many that they were unable to resolve with a quick fix. Before you get more exp fighting things that were challenging, The cap on how much you can get from an action on high level mobs was way higher.
Think about it, i can literally solo most of the monsters that are 10 levls higher than me, with 2 people i can do it fairly easy, do you really think 8 people are supposed to be fighting things that one man can solo? and 3 people can steam roll?
And I'm not even hax, i did this repeatedly on multiple classes, even conjurer, and my stats are set for War

[Peregrine]

I can't believe someone is so ridiculously idiotic to think that this is something that only they can be right on.

Don't be pissy with the FF14 playerbase because your mom took her tit away too early.

This is what happens when infallable reasoning causes cognitive dissonance in a person ripe for internal conflict. It EXPLODES in their head, forcing them to completely scramble for resolution. Since they can't respond with similar-caliber reasoning, they resort to the most base, Id, simple responses imaginable.

Buuuut it doesn't work. Good comeback, really. Archers should retain their power because I wasn't breastfed long enough.

Wonder how Freud would interpreting you going straight to breast milk in this topic.

Stick to the topic please. I know the dissonance is echoing around in your head like a bomb, but do control yourself and at least try to defend how much this logic wrecks your ideas without primal grunting.

[DurtiMonkeyToe]

No meleeing DD should be below any ranged attacker in output, because in the fights that matter ranged status confers AoE invincibility. If you do not put all ranged attackers under the power of any DD, that DD becomes a pointless liability in important fights. None of archers weaknesses are real, and in fact are far from the truth. They aren't glass. They're invincible. DD aren't tougher. Aerial Wing hurts them dearly. I can outparse a marauder by about 3% in an 8 man party, and I don't get stomped. That's not fair. As lolsy as conjurers are the only reason we're not at risk of being amassed and thrown at the next Fafnir is because obviously Thaumaturge would be thrown first. Technically we both need nerfs.

This is how the damage profile for jobs should go:

Marauder=pugilist=lancer. The top power jobs. Has to be. Has to. Each of them can bring something unique to the table, but all of them have to be equal in damage output and none of their "other advantages" can outweigh any other's, or their advantages actually NEED each other to be more effective. You can NOT have a thief in that mix, parsing 8% behind them, with the excuse that their other abilities make up for it. They don't. They won't. They can't. All meleers need equal damage output, or people start calling jobs gimp and marginalizing them. Lesson in history number 2.

Followed closely by: gladiator. Why? Because archers are wrong when they say the above tank. The above DON'T tank, which is the only reason gladiator is invited. However, it'd be disastrous for gladiators if they could. If the player population discovers a way to combine the DD power of the above with the hate-retention of a glad, there is no use for a glad. A glad becomes a waste of a party slot. Right now our DDs parse 18-24% party damage while the gladiators parse 1%. They are at risk of being dropped off the map if the players find a way to tank well with the other DDs. Why? Because we already know a ninja tank, which DDs and contributes to faster kills, is better than a paladin, who doesn't do damage. You get more SP/Hour by ditching the high-defense, low output job. Certainly in a sp party that focusses on kills per minute, gladiators are already disadvantaged. Can you argue that if gladiators were good damagers, there'd be no point in the other DD? No, of course not. Only one gladiator can use its defense advantage at a time. There is no point in amassing seven gladiators if only one of them uses their advantage at a time but six of them are not as effective at DD as six other meleers. So it will not be done.

So the meleers, followed closely by the tanks. Followed by who?
The ranged attackers. Ranged attackers do not need to be cured. They don't risk dying to powerful AoE. As already stated, ranged attackers USE that benefit every time they go out to party. They pay for arrows, but gil has already been proven to be insufficient price to pay for that tangible advantage, an advantage that no amount of gil can buy on a meleer. It simply is not enough price. You must put ranged attackers at a performance level that they cannot make up for by paying gil, or they will pay the gil and claim they deserve it, and "lolmeleer".

Followed by who?
The mages. God, the mages what more dangerous group of players to balance. Let's just cut the pretenses and make them the lowest-damaging jobs in the game. Straight off. I know that's crazy, but listen. They have everything AoE if they want. They have sleep. Hello, anyone ever used sleep to an advantage? They have healing. Crazy healing. They can do everything, and they can do things no one else can. There isn't even a question that they should be at the bottom of the damage profile until almost all of their other advantages get taken away.

A black mage that can't ever sleep anything, can't dispel, can't heal, can't do anything but damage--only THEN does a black mage deserve to be where archer is. Their arrows are free but limited renewable resource. Equal tradeoff. A DD mage should be exactly like a ranged attacker. No functional difference. You should be able to blind the results of a parse and not be able to tell who is the archer and who is the black mage, because theyr'e the same job essentially. Ranged DD. Just as mrd=lnc=pug, blm=archer. They can have small party benefits that are unique, but none so broken as sleep. It STILL doesn't EVER deserve to be at the top with the meleers. Why? Because they too avoid AoE like archers.

So.
Meleers>tanks>ranged attackers>mages.

Has to be that way. Has to. Otherwise, the displaced group becomes a useless valley on the graph that just gets cut out.

/Opinion...

[DurtiMonkeyToe]

well one real factor, that not a lot of people get is, this game actually has a lot of positional and avoidable weapon skills, and it is actually easier to escape on lancer, as pug, i need to be on top of the monster to hit it, with the new monster sizes actually inside it. When im on lnc i can hit from farther, and when you actually try to avoid aoe, like Tail chase on pterocs, or regurgitate(which is totally avoidable) it is much easier on lancer. also lancer gets close attack shadow with the shortest cooldown
That said the archer still has a big advantage because they dont have to take the damage, or even run away from it. Also people who say archer is weak, this game really has a lot of defensive skills you can steal, that are still effective for taking dmg once in awhile. Archer has a ranged damage shadow, there is a close damage shadow, there stoneskin, there are cure iis, in most situations, an archer can take care of themselves, in fact they were designed to be able to, they stand in a different position for optimal play, which is usually behind thaums, and not close to Melee, which makes them more difficult to heal for thaums and cons.

Btw, people really think that mobs tactics are easy in this game because they outlevel it, fight mobs 15-20 levels higher, and you actually try to avoid aoes, and are aware of your positions, and the positions of your team mates.



Uhhh an arrow is way less lethal than a sword. Having 200 archers at the top of a fort is an excellent strategy, but having 200 swordsmen next to the same targets is way more useful.

The advantage to an arrow is the ability to do dmg with less risk of recieving it, but it is not the ability to do more dmg than a close ranged fighter.

honestly the initial idea of Archer, was a pretty good one. im not saying they should be weaker than everyone, but stronger? uhhhhh no

from the initial website description
"Archers possess a situational awareness in combat which allows them to assault enmeies from great range while simultaneously providing support to thier companions
Though weak at close range limited by their quivers an archers expertise in positioning and arrow selection can easily determine the outcome of battle"

they are supposed to have many more arrows that are useful in specific conditions, magic barrier arrows, ashkin arrows, poison arrows for long fights, large enemy arrows

They are basically supposed to be a utility/dd class that can use specific tactics in one class with no minuses. That vision was a good and unique vision for a discipline that is still usefull, and in specific situations may out dmg people, but not all, I think it would have been a very good direction. Even if it turns out they dont outperform people, i still think it would be a good discipline direction, and they need to follow up on that.

You can't look at it on the scale of 200 archers or swordsman. Your max party size is 8 people. I bet, if you did any research, you would find that you can inflict WAY more damage with a bow than a sword. It comes down to the amount of force you can deal. You can apply more force with a bow than you can a sword.

[Peregrine]

If that were the case, archers would have nothing to bring to a fight. Pugilists and mrd have a ton of HP so they can survive close encounters. Lancers have very little HP and are stuck in melee range, however they bring fairly diverse abilities to a fight. Also as of now, normal attacks across all classes do about the same damage on NMs. the only time you see large numbers is in a BR and even they it depends on where you fall inside of the BR.

No, read the topic. You bring the ability to attack at any range to the fight. Don't think that's an advantage? You must not have played a MMO before.

[Shampooo]

you know tanks parse very low because enimty / threat is broken and holding threat is just a matter of spaming certain abilities. at which alot of these abilties costs a tank 40% of his stam bar leaving little room to spam attacks. This whole post is pointless considering no one knows whats going to happen with the new battle system.
As to WHY archers should be lower on damage than anyone else i dunno, no one needs a a nerf, some classes just need buffed.

[Peregrine]

The topic of nerfing Archers may be a pointless one, but I see two valid points for discussion by Peregrine.

1) Developers beings responsible for the behavior of players
2) Equal opportunity for all classes

Point #1 is important. Developers ARE responsible, through game design, for the behavior of players. So if they create an environment where leaders have no choice but to bring 6 archers and 2 thaumaturges that is a major problem. This is something developers should take an active role in. I think Peregrine is so upset because he thinks the dev team isn't paying attention. So I would like to see, as a result of this thread, the dev team comment that throughout the life of the game they are committed to watching situations like this and making sure they design the game so players are having fun, not getting forced into situations nobody wanted.

As for point #2, I'm not sure we should expect equal opportunity from picking a class. Why not pick something that is satisfying to you to play? If being on even footing with everyone else is the only thing that satisfies you, maybe you should think about the effects that will have on other players before making demands.

Look at Greg Street, the lead systems designer of WoW. For the last several years he has tirelessly balanced classes for WoW and I think anyone that's been paying attention can conclude that it's been a fruitless journey. The endless cycle of nerfs and buffs just aggravates everybody. The dev team is spinning in circles. And the ideas that could have been developed or content that could have been implemented will never be. Class balancing is just one huge nerf to the entire game. So why not be ok with who you are and nerf the need to keep comparing yourself to other people, in light of course, of the conclusion of point #1.

Point 1: absolutely. Yoshida is at a unique position to do primarily what Tanaka can only react to. KNOW these imbalances from years of playing them before they even happen, as I'm doing right now. It is their responsibility to keep the game from being archer'd up, and it is hard. The harder the content, the more desperate the players will be to find the easiest way to win. You have to design the game so that the obvious advantages of one class can't be stacked over the advantages of other classes. You have to design the game so that you can't really get very far with 6 archers a gladiator, and a thaumaturge. Otherwise, that is what the players will do. Who'se fault is it when it happens? The developers', ultimately.

Point 2: All classes MUST have equal inherent worth. Again, because players cannot be responsible for how they treat jobs that aren't equal worth. Puppeteers are the best example. They were treated like dogs in FFXI. Players WILL play what they like to play, but whatever they do play MUST be equal to every other choice in worth, because that player is worth what every one else is. Thief and dragoon should not be a labor of love. Otherwise, you get people who would love to play thief but won't, and you get people who really don't like to play mage, they just like how they're treated when they do.

I honestly don't see Square Enix avoiding archering archer on archers again. The same mistakes are being made, and the countermeasures Tanaka enacted to fix those mistakes are being phased out all over again. We're forgetting, and there is only one end when that happens because players never change. Developers never learn. Pressure leads down the same road.

[Xzen]

No, read the topic. You bring the ability to attack at any range to the fight. Don't think that's an advantage? You must not have played a MMO before.

By that logic the range needs to be reduced on all spells to melee range or nerfed for THM and CON.

[Peregrine]

you know tanks parse very low because enimty / threat is broken and holding threat is just a matter of spaming certain abilities. at which alot of these abilties costs a tank 40% of his stam bar leaving little room to spam attacks. This whole post is pointless considering no one knows whats going to happen with the new battle system.
As to WHY archers should be lower on damage than anyone else i dunno, no one needs a a nerf, some classes just need buffed.

I know exactly why gladiators can't damage. You're not telling me something I haven't known for months. the developers need to keep gladiators' perilous position in mind though when they redo the battle and hate system. If they screw up, gladiator is the first one up on the chopping block and will only be an endgame toy like it is in XI. Avoided for 75 levels because it brings damage and sp per hour down. What is a paladin? Nothing but an in-house resource that an endgame shell raised to tank in the few cases where it's needed. It's inherently at risk of being phased out of most of the game.

[AlexiaKidd]

Peregrine have you actually parsed an Archer on an NM fight because I am hearing a lot of talk with nothing to back it up?