Idea: Split Archer into Bard and Ranger

[Xerius]

The resistance your getting from the community is also another big reason this will never happen. Half the posts in this thread are just simply... no.

So yeah... no.

Using this logic the other half of the responses are 'yes.'

So, uh... yes!

[RiceisNice]

Using this logic the other half of the responses are 'yes.'

So, uh... yes!

And people saying "no" are only half of this discussion as well.

It's a matter of how the job is played not DPS. A lot of people are upset that they're favorite job is all of the sudden played completely differently. Many people aren't disappointed by BRDs lack of DPS but are disappointed by how it feels to play the job now. Of course some people love WM, but many people don't and that's why I think it's only logical that a split occurs so people that loved the job before can play in a style similar to their favorite and people that love WM can still play BRD in it's current state.

Even if you were to take away WM from bard, they need something else to fill in the damage discrepancy. WM increases their overall dps as much as every otehr job getting increased dps from their new abilities. That is, their relative dps compared to other classes has not increased by using WM; their overall dps is balanced around using WM.

If you fit in ranger as a role that does exactly what WM does and foregoing regen songs, it's not competing with bard for a DPS slot, but rather the spell casters which comes with it's own problems; TP is not sustainable like MP and you have the spell damage aspect. The current party compositon setup between DPS is that you want two melee, 1 "support dps" and one caster. "Support dps" would be BRD or MCH because of their regen abilties which comes with naturally less damage output compared to those of a caster.

And now even if we were to go with this, it doesn't change the fact who (BRD or RNG) gets WM. WM the way it is, does not work well with archer's skills. The traits don't work properly with proc rates, and the animations on the archer skills. It's not so much as fixing the problem rather than moving it somewhere else.

[Xerius]

And people saying "no" are only half of this discussion as well

See: Quote I was responding to. I was responding to how their logic was flawed and using their same logic I could come to the exact opposite conclusion.

And now even if we were to go with this, it doesn't change the fact who (BRD or RNG) gets WM. WM the way it is, does not work well with archer's skills. The traits don't work properly with proc rates, and the animations on the archer skills. It's not so much as fixing the problem rather than moving it somewhere else.

See: Entire thread. I never said move WM to Ranger. I said keep BRD as it is. Add Ranger as a more mobile DPS focused job. This way the people that love BRD as is can keep it and the people that liked old-style BRD can get Ranger and keep that play style.

[Duelle]

I never said move WM to Ranger. I said keep BRD as it is. Add Ranger as a more mobile DPS focused job. This way the people that love BRD as is can keep it and the people that liked old-style BRD can get Ranger and keep that play style.

Again, you're trying to sweep a problem under the rug by introducing something else. Why anyone would even want to waste resources on that boggles the mind.

[RiceisNice]

See: Quote I was responding to. I was responding to how their logic was flawed and using their same logic I could come to the exact opposite conclusion.



See: Entire thread. I never said move WM to Ranger. I said keep BRD as it is. Add Ranger as a more mobile DPS focused job. This way the people that love BRD as is can keep it and the people that liked old-style BRD can get Ranger and keep that play style.

Then ranger has no place in the current group composition unless you want them to compete with caster dps, and you've done nothing to solve the original problem that still exists on bard. If people want to stay as old bard, they can just keep WM off and still pull ok dps.

Whats your take in what's actually wrong with bard? Because I think we're on two different contexts