PLD, WAR, & DRK balancing ideas

[Reynhart]

Except WARs have been OP since FF1 so it makes sense...

Great logic you have there.
Considering that Warrior was the base class for Knight in FF I, and that Knight is the japanese name for PLD, I suggest PLD should be everything that Warrior is...with white magic on top of that.
Is it okay ?

[Martin_Arcainess]

Dps will always be the thing you concern yourself once you pass the mitigation/healing requirements of a fight. What else would you try to improve once you clear a fight, other than kill speed?

Yeah I know what you mean, when it's no longer relevant that's it's fine but newly released stuff where you still see bring high deeps and just get WAR or DRK in for tanks thats a issue.

Saying that thought PLD's DPS is fine as it is.

[Chronons]

snip

Jobs that are harder to play should do more DPS than jobs that are easier to play. Its not balance to make low skill cap jobs equal to high skill cap jobs with respect to DPS. There will always be a meta, making changes like this would just make the low skill cap jobs the meta - ie. no return for playing harder classes.

Also, DRK very arguably does the most damage out of the tanks when it is MT. Im not sure how you measure "okay at best".

[aleph_null]

Yeah I know what you mean, when it's no longer relevant that's it's fine but newly released stuff where you still see bring high deeps and just get WAR or DRK in for tanks thats a issue.

Saying that thought PLD's DPS is fine as it is.

Progression isn't all about high dps. I'm not very experienced compared to some of the raiders here, but I did early progression on creator savage. When you progress on a new content you do whatever it takes to cover whatever you lack. Died to aoe unavoidable damage? Meld vit (dps/healers). Wiped to dps check? Bring better food/potion, optimize cd planning, change strats. Need more physical/magic mitigation on tank? Have him switch between pld/drk. Need more healing boost? Bring mnk.

If I remember correctly world first a2s clear used pld due to the physical mitigation and possibly cover, despite the lack of aoe dps (and a2s has tons of adds), world first a3s clear used drk for the extra dps because of the tight dps check, despite the tank dmg mostly being physical. Also a7s and a8s world first clears had mnk for mantra. If you really think people optimize for "high deeps" in new relevant contents, I question your experience with progressions (or lack of).

[DestroyerOfLargePlanets]

This is true but the game design doesn't need an iron fortress type of job. That's why paladin have received quite a hefty chunk of dps buffs over the last few patches because no one wanted them in there groups cos nothing hits hard enough to need an iron fortress all that matters is dps...

So what's your suggestion/counterargument? I am already aware of these concepts you're conveying to me. In brief, my point is that in order to make PLD a more desirable pick in team compositions -- while maintaining its theme as the iron fortress -- its personal damage must be nerfed while its raidwide damage contribution is buffed. What do you have to say about that?

[Reynhart]

Jobs that are harder to play should do more DPS than jobs that are easier to play.

No, they shouldn't. If you do this, you basically have jobs for low-level, and jobs for high level. All jobs are supposed to be equally wanted in a party.
If you want "easy gameplay", the first 59 (soon 69) are there to practice.

[Chronons]

No, they shouldn't. If you do this, you basically have jobs for low-level, and jobs for high level. All jobs are supposed to be equally wanted in a party.
If you want "easy gameplay", the first 59 (soon 69) are there to practice.

That is what exists now. Jobs that are more mechanically difficult do more DPS (Summoner, Scholar, Dark Knight, Monk). It should stay that way. If you make all jobs do the same DPS regardless of the level of skill required to play them you have just simply reversed the meta. There is no point to bring the high skill cap jobs if they dont do any more DPS than the low skill cap jobs.

There should be low skill-highly accessible jobs, there should be difficult-high skill jobs, they should not be equal just because you like the low skill job more than the others available. If you like the more basic jobs, just play them. You dont have to try and justify their relevance to more meta jobs. No reason trumps "I like this one the best" outside of competitive play.

[Reynhart]

That is what exists now. Jobs that are more mechanically difficult do more DPS (Summoner, Scholar, Dark Knight, Monk). It should stay that way.

No, it should not. Every job (in the same role) should be able to do contribute the same DPS wise (personal of by party utility) at the same mastery.

What should change depending on the skill cap is the content. You have low requirement content and high requirement content. If you keep the idea of jobs being inherently weaker or stronger by their skill requirement, you're just saying "Go change your job if you want to be competitive in end-game". The only way to do that is, again, having "basic" and "advanced" jobs. It's as if you would use classes to level 60 to clear every story content and dungeon, but if you want to participate in endgame, then you have to switch to a job.

Jobs are stronger than classes, so a player sticking to a class is fully aware that he's not pushing its characters. But, at the same time, changing to a job doesn't ask you to level something else, of use a weapon you don't like, it's a clear Promotion.

[Chronons]

No, it should not. Every job (in the same role) should be able to do contribute the same DPS wise (personal of by party utility) at the same mastery.

Then respectfully please interact with the argument I provided above, twice. If you did this, the low skill jobs become the de facto meta. There is no point in bringing a harder job to play if it provides no benefit in competitive play. All it does is reverse that which you seek to rectify. Emphatically repeating your position is not a productive discussion.

What should change depending on the skill cap is the content. You have low requirement content and high requirement content. If you keep the idea of jobs being inherently weaker or stronger by their skill requirement, you're just saying "Go change your job if you want to be competitive in end-game".

I am saying that, because it is the truth. Metas will develop when it comes to competitive play. There was a team comp meta for those trying to world first savage clears. Its okay if you don't want to follow that meta for anything outside of competitive play, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong.

It's as if you would use classes to level 60 to clear every story content and dungeon, but if you want to participate in endgame, then you have to switch to a job. Jobs are stronger than classes, so a player sticking to a class is fully aware that he's not pushing its characters. But, at the same time, changing to a job doesn't ask you to level something else, of use a weapon you don't like, it's a clear Promotion.

This line of reasoning doesn't seem relevant to the discussion, by my understanding. Perhaps you could elaborate on the point your trying to make?

[MagiusNecros]

If we want to do some balancing we can always start with making Parry worth something instead of just looking good on your Job's stat sheet. Physical resistances would be nice too. Let's do something with that.

I'm not going to comment on DPS changes when it comes to tanking. I'd rather be tanking incoming damage instead of pushing phases.