Quote Originally Posted by Neptune View Post
I'm pretty sure no one read my post and just went on arguing blindly.
Not so much- I read it, but by then it was too late to comment without a large necro-bump of the post. Our concept of "balance" is a pretty foolish one in that, as is Thaumaturges and Archers aren't overpowered, because they do their jobs, but they don't do them too well. The true balance exists not in how many points the job gets to score up in a period of time in a race with another job, but if it portrays and conveys the flavorful message in it's play. As it is, an Archer is a valuable party member to increase damage output- but it's far from perfect, as it must either outdamage it's target very VERY quickly, or rely on another player to defend it. But it's hard to look at something with clarity when you get your feelings hurt because you feel that they were more useful than you in a party- when infact the idea of a party is for the complete mutual benefit of all involved.

The flaw with the view some have on the archer is the concept of "melee DD" vs "ranged DD". Melee characters are designed to THRIVE against physical blows, Archers are not, the end. Because of this, if the melee character shelled out more damage in the critical short-clock that Archers have before they need to run from their target, then it wouldn't be very well constructed. It's because out concepts of the game are so bogged down by MMO jargon that we forget that roles are an act of imagination, and the only true "DD" is the character who has no other means of survival.