I was wondering, why does people count dps instead of total potency?

[Yesui]

I would say the most important issue here, is that DPS directly corresponds to how easily you can complete content, whereas PPS does not. PPS is fine when comparing individual abilities, but when you take the different classes entire kits into consideration, it's important to consider real numbers vs real numbers(damage vs hp).

[Fannah]

No offense, but my title is so great you all seem to skip the posts and only answer to my title x)

On a SSS dummy, for exemple, timer can be easily taken in count.

I agree about the skill speed etc counting and changing a lot. But I also do remember I talked about potency per second too (look for "potency per second" in the previous page with ctrl+F)

And I talked about the equipment, I talked about why I even talked about the topic all along it :
--> People talk about balance on one single data brought by someone in monotarget dps under perfect conditions (not moving target, no invincibility/untargetable phases, no attack to dodge).
--> People post their score as they may have been just more lucky about crits than another one (number of crits + on what skill) making them looking better than tif they made the exact same gameplay but with less crits or on worse skills.
--> People could know if their rotation is technically better, which won't change because they have better gears or not.

Just once again to be sure, I do think DPS in important, you all seems to think I'm saying it's not.

[Carstien]

You're trying to overcomplicate things for no reason. DPS is the damage you did, per second. It's literally all you need to know about your contribution to the fight. PPS is unreliable as it doesn't take into account the crits, the party buffs, the direct hits or anything else that has real fight applications.

There is no need for any other calculation as we already have one that works as intended, trying to change it or suggest another on top of that is a classic case of fixing something that isn't broken in the first place.

[Fannah]

You didn't read it too, as I repeat myself in several posts, and especially in my last one where I talk about the fact people ignore what I said and why I said this.
I do agree understanding potency looks more complicated, but if you read me, I said there would be a lot of differents data mentionned aside total potency (so yea, if we have +20% dmg, a skill with 200 will be counted as 240 potency, but also with a number reminding you you did 200 potency).

I do believe the way people about balance looks too casual overall. Even if some people completely make sense without having too deep data. Maybe it's too complicated for people overall, but it's not too complicated for people who really want to talk about balancing things.

Once more, I don't wanna get rid of DPS, as it's also an important data too.

[KaiSunstrider]

If you look at total potency over 3 mins vs taking total potency and dividing it by 180 seconds, they are the same relative thing? If you said SAM did 792,000 potency while NIN did 738,000 potency in 3 mins it would just be cumbersome to look at vs 4400 vs 4100 PPS. Its just a more concise way to report it?

[Fannah]

As I said, it is not only useful for this, but also to know if you did well as your own class.

If you do 738000 potency in 3 min with your samurai with 4100dps because you're ilvl 300, and another one does that same potency of 738000 with his samurai with 4400dps because he is ilvl314, it will mean you still played well, just need better gears, so you don't need to wait to have an optimal equipment to train your rotation for exemple.

I am surprised to see how much I've tried to use a maximum of information in very few text to be understood, and I find myself just repeating things again and again. Maybe I was not clear enough, and I'm sorry for this, if there are that many people who didn't understand me, then I guess it's my fault in the end. But I'm still wondering if people actually read what I wrote.

[KaiSunstrider]

If you do 738000 potency in 3 min with your samurai with 4100dps because you're ilvl 300, and another one does that same potency of 738000 with his samurai with 4400dps because he is ilvl314

I just dont understand i guess. How can you do 738,000 potency in 3 mins and with 4400 dps when 738,000/180sec = 4100 PPS? It is impossible to do the "Same potency" in the "same amount of time' and have diff PPS numbers. PPS = Total Potency done/Total amount of Time. If two people do the same potency in the same amount of time, it is mathmatically impossible for them to have different PPS/DPS

[Fannah]

Ah maybe we don't speak about the same total potency. I mean the base potency, like "Maim" of the War will always make 200 potency, even with a char lvl 30 which obviously never will inflict as much dmg as a ilvl 314 war which still only did 200 potency. Which explains the difference. But maybe did you mean the total potency of Maim with a crit wouldn't count as only 200 but like (for exemple) 350 potency thx to the crit?
And of course I believe both to be taken in count when talking about balance.

[KaiSunstrider]

I mean the base potency, like "Maim" of the War will always make 200 potency, even with a char lvl 30 which obviously never will inflict as much dmg as a ilvl 314 war which still only did 200 potency. Which explains the difference.

But you cant just look at potency of abilities, A BLM could have a 350 potency ability with a 3.5 sec cast while a monk has a 200 potency ability with a 2.0 sec gcd. They are the same relative damage over time even though they are diff potency values. You also have to take in consideration of some classes have auto attacks that dont have " set potencies" and some do not. Some classes have RNG proc based mechanics like BRD and MCH with no real set rotation except proper adaptation to the exact moment in time. You have to look at multiple iteration over time to get a basis. Looking at just potency only tells a small part of the story.

[SunnyHirose]

Fannah, I think I understand your question on some level. Here are a few things to consider:

• Different jobs do not bring the same damage per potency. They actually have slightly different damage formulas and available stats from gear and traits.
• Between certain traits and the standard buffs that should be taken as a given, players of jobs conceive of the same potency in different ways. Monk has always had fairly low potencies even back when it outclassed dragoon in every way, because you could take Greased Lightning, Dragon Kick, and Twin Snakes as a given most of the time and
• There is damage that is problematic to evaluate in terms of potency. Auto-attacks are basically outside the potency system. Skills that buff critical hit rate can be considered outside the potency system.
• Within comparable encounters, people are usually working with roughly the same range of gear. Even if some people are unfairly behind on gear in a way that makes it incredibly difficult to clear an encounter, it is fair to expect people who are trying to get to a competitive level would at the very least have the free-farmable tomestone gear. And everyone at the start of a hardcore raid cycle is technically behind on gear relative to the difficulty.

I feel ya when it comes to people only rarely giving an appropriate context for demonstrations of their skills. I really do, used to moan about it all the time in ARR especially. Item level isn't good enough for me; I gotta know all your stats and then maybe we have a shot at theorycrafting it out to see if you just had absurd luck instead of knowing something the rest of us don't.

However, in the end, if you want to boast good performance, it's a much more attractive sell to say "we have the speed record on this fight" than to say "we have the speed record for minimum item level sync for this fight" even though the latter would be the greater and fairer challenge by many malms. You're not competing with hardly anyone in that category.

So it's a kind of social thing, too, to be doing the latest challenges in the best gear, "the real test" even though it logically isn't. Like, there are a few people who climb mountains (really, really tough climbs) without much more safety gear than good shoes and chalk. It's incredibly dangerous: at those heights one cannot survive a single small mistake, and I'm sorry to say these mistakes have happened. These same people could logically prove their capability with significantly less risk to themselves by using a rope and just not falling (which is how they practice and plan, mind you); even with the rope it's still a huge challenge with plenty of risk and prestige. But it's not at all what they're looking to prove or enjoy doing.