How To: Maximize Your DPS as Dragoon

[Odox]

@Eclips I was joking at the fact that you only had 3 posts and all three were basically you hitting a boiling point for these "MAX DPS" threads. =P

My presentation is that this rotation does more DPS in any length of time and hinges more on a priority system. Try it yourself.

Why should I or anyone else provide the evidence that what YOU claim is true? Oh and ANY length of time? ONE 83 second parse that was likely done on a boss with no mechanics/disconnects is not proof that your rotation is the end all rotation for DRG. You would need to post video evidence of you doing the rotation successfully on multiple length/mechanic fights and your parse from them to be taken seriously at this point. Otherwise this thread is just a joke.

[LongNu]

Why should I or anyone else provide the evidence that what YOU claim is true?

I don't lose anything by you not taking my evidence. At the same time, I don't have to play your little game either. Which btw, has no official confirmation on correctness. If I were to make side by side parses of the other rotation vs this and show this one is coming out higher then it would be another circle of endless 'do this and do that'. So instead, why not do your own and make your own judgment? I presented something that does more DPS than the other rotation, in every way based on my own tests and you refused to accept it without doing your own tests. This is not my problem, this is yours. The best way to get something done is to do it yourself. Up to now, I have yet to be disproved by any post here other than vile, arguably angry criticisms that serve no purpose in an objective goal to truly determine what does more.

[AzumaKun]

I presented something that does more DPS than the other rotation,

Sorry, I've been trying to watch this thread from the sidelines since my last post and with LongNu on ignore, but I just couldn't help myself.

Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, no one will take what you say seriously.

[LongNu]

Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, no one will take what you say seriously.

I've already done my tests and found my proof. I am more than satisfied in my findings. You, on the other hand have yet to disprove me which only adds to my satisfaction in what I have found.

[Masked]

I've already done my tests and found my proof. I am more than satisfied in my findings. You, on the other hand have yet to disprove me which only adds to my satisfaction in what I have found.

Where are the parses?

Parses = Fact.

Your Satisfaction = Nothing.

I'd like to see both parsed out -- Until then, the best we have is theory-crafting...

[LongNu]

Parses = Fact.

Parses are far from 100% accurate and for what it's worth, I've already used the faulty mechanism to gain my results by testing both rotations. Therefore...

Your Satisfaction = Nothing.

I'm satisfied with what I've found, unless I was specifically shown otherwise. Which I have not been up to now.

Until then, the best we have is theory-crafting...

I agree.

you keep using that word, etc etc

Because it's true.
/Shrug
There has been nothing to otherwise convince me other than trolling, name-calling and useless untested schematics. If that's 'proof' then I must be rudely mistaken.

[RoughDivider]

Parses are far from 100% accurate and for what it's worth, I've already used the faulty mechanism to gain my results by testing both rotations. Therefore...


I'm satisfied with what I've found, unless I was specifically shown otherwise. Which I have not been up to now.


I agree.


Because it's true.
/Shrug
There has been nothing to otherwise convince me other than trolling, name-calling and useless untested schematics. If that's 'proof' then I must be rudely mistaken.

To be fair that's incorrect usage of the word "schematics". That's pretty much the only useful thing I can add here.

[Masked]

Parses are far from 100% accurate and for what it's worth, I've already used the faulty mechanism to gain my results by testing both rotations. Therefore...


I'm satisfied with what I've found, unless I was specifically shown otherwise. Which I have not been up to now.


I agree.

I fail to understand how parsing is inaccurate.

All of your information from FFXIV is time-stamped, this includes damage.

A parser takes that damage, including dots and spits out a total dps.

There is no data, unless the parser cannot add, that can be mis-construed.

Even if dot damage was cycled differently, your DPS wouldn't change because it's still over a time period.

Ultimately, I fail to see how a parser cannot add.

I'm also not calling you names, simply saying that until you put forth evidence -- There is no fact to base this theory on...You know, a lot like UFOs are real...Just sayin.

[BlackThought]

I've already done my tests and found my proof. I am more than satisfied in my findings. You, on the other hand have yet to disprove me which only adds to my satisfaction in what I have found.

I feel like Donald Rumsfeld is playing this character.

[Zabuza]

Ok so I just wanna know once and for all... what proof would be enough to satisfy you? Prove has already been put forth and you guys are saying there is no proof... What proof do you want, what boss is standard for determining what DPS is valid? Or is it a dummy? If so, how long of a parse do you need? It just seems no matter what proof is put forth some people just don't want to believe the truth.