MCH vs BRD (And why MCH need serious help)

[Elnidfse]

I know that. It has nothing to do with anything.

Direct Hit has diminishing returns.

And you're saying that these diminishing returns affects BV which is additive. And that it affects everybody the same way SS affects MNK? Hmm?

Hundreds of potency

You're right. Everybody can and does lose hundreds of potency. You've completely missed the point, however.

Wow, you're not even trying to be reasonable. Did you know that BLM does 100% less for rDPS than RDM? What a nonsense number to pull.

The difference in contribution is rDPS 0.722% . To flip this ridiculous statement on its head. If somebody wanted to pad their numbers, as many people do, what two healers do they prefer? If you were to parse in statics and not in pugs, what healers would you take?

rDPS matters in reference to balancing personal DPS. Out of the horse's own mouth.

Damage dealt when solo.
Susceptibility to mechanics (jobs affected more by mechanics deal slightly more solo damage, and vice versa).
Ability to raise a full party's total damage.

In contrast, samurai boasts high solo damage, but can not do much to increase party damage.

The only way this would be acceptable is if they overbuffed the hell out of hypercharge again, rendering BRDs entire suite of "little" as you put it, DPS raisers obsolete by being flat out better.

With that out of the way.

You'd think this was the worst balance issue the game has ever had from the way people are acting.

Nobody is saying that. Mind you, I'm not unsympathetic to the vast majority of MCH that are struggling right now when they could just reroll and perform just fine because the job is extremely punishing and/or unfulfilling. But I don't base my argument with them. I care about the people who can perform. And for that reason I'm not going to go in depth about the "susceptibility to mechanics". I've made my argument very flat, without attempting to delegitimize people's legitimate concerns. Which I'll restate at the bottom.

Fixes

Proposed fixes are silly. They're also not for this thread. This isn't a request, it's a statement.

If Bards provide more rDPS. They should do less Personal DPS.

[Pyitoechito]

On the topic of Flamethrower, the potency should definitely be increased to compensate for the loss of auto-attacks at the very least. Perhaps it could have increased potency when heat is below 50, in contrast to how Cooldown has increased potency at 50+ heat. It could easily be given the "Flare treatment" (damage falloff per additional target) to allow its single-target potency to be more meaningful without making it too powerful against large groups (it should still be more potent than Spread Shot when below 50 heat, though).

[Elnidfse]

On the topic of Flamethrower, the potency should definitely be increased to compensate for the loss of auto-attacks at the very least. Perhaps it could have increased potency when heat is below 50, in contrast to how Cooldown has increased potency at 50+ heat. It could easily be given the "Flare treatment" (damage falloff per additional target) to allow its single-target potency to be more meaningful without making it too powerful against large groups (it should still be more potent than Spread Shot when below 50 heat, though).

Ricochet getting the flare treatment was fine. Bishop turret getting the flare treatment is horrible. Which! I should say wouldn't be that bad if it still wasn't on a 3.5 second recast. But it is.

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

I agree. For the already low potency of it, the Bishop turret should've been left dealing full damage to any and all targets within its range.

[Cetonis]

And you're saying that these diminishing returns affects BV which is additive. And that it affects everybody the same way SS affects MNK? Hmm?

I'll touch on this in particular, since you're otherwise making fairly obvious statements (yes, of course Bard should do x less personal damage than MCH, if it's going to x more raid damage) that nobody disagrees with. The fix proposal was exactly to make the point that we probably more or less agree on the actual scale of the issue. I'm just protesting against the hysteria and the slew of disingenuous arguments being made.

This is a serious issue and it should be treated like one. Blatant nonsense like the OP ("hey look, one column counts to six and the other counts to two, isn't that awful?"), and people later refusing to exercise basic reading comprehension re: Troubadour, only makes the case weaker. It makes it look like it's just a bunch of people hunting for bad excuses to complain.

Anyhow, what I mean by diminishing returns is that if you have some Direct Hit already, additional points of Direct Hit are worth less. At +0 Direct Hit, adding 15% Direct Hit is a 3.75% damage increase relative to what you were dealing before.

But if you have 20% Direct Hit already (that'd only be a 1146 DH stat), Direct Hit is already causing you to deal 105% of your regular damage. Going to 35% DH means you're dealing 108.75% of your regular damage - but that's only a 3.57% increase over the damage you were dealing before.

So BV gets 5% weaker when your party members have a modicum of Direct Hit. The other DPS will generally have more than that (probably 25-30% or so base DH, I'd guess). Tanks will have a little less (they're apt to meld full DH left side though, so not zero), and healers we'll have to see (if heals can't DH then maybe they just meld zero). It's not a huge diminishment, but it's there, and there's certainly no amplification.

[Elnidfse]

It makes it look like it's just a bunch of people hunting for bad excuses to complain.

People do that when they're upset about something. I don't find it that surprising. And I should note that this goes both ways. Disingenuous arguments that is. As unless I'm mistaken you're under the impression that BRD is equally as punishing to execution and encounters as MCH is.

Whatever the case is: Thank you for your thought out post on Direct Hit. I would be lying if I said I'm sold. At 15% we have x(1+0.25(15/100)) you would indeed be a 3.75%. So let's look at the hypothetical 20%. x(1+0.25(20/100) At that point you're doing 5% over your norm. If you add 15% on top of that. That is to say x(1+0.25(35/100)) it's 8.75% on top of your norm. That means that unless you're above 85% direct hit. You will always receive a relative 3.75% increase to damage. Unless I'm wrong, because of the static nature of it's damage, it's extremely easy to math out the increases. Again if i'm wrong please feel free to shed some light on the situation.

[Aomine1992]

After leveling both to 70 I can say without a doubt MCH is just in a awful place and when you compare it to its counterpart (bard) it reminds me of this saying "you don't compete, where you don't compare"

Bard is a compete power house with the games best utility and some pretty good dps, bard is in a really really good place (please don't nerf lol)

MCH offers nothing besides the role abilities and the 10% dmg debuff which is negligible because it's gone just as soon as you use it lol, and I will say this again the whole rng crap with its combo was dumb but moving on the dps is really low, it's embarrassing calling bard it's counterpart because currently they don't compare at all bard would always be the better choice for dps and utility..

Hopefully they push MCH up to the BRDs level or they might as well remove the class, for it to offer nothing it should at least do a bit more dps

[Elnidfse]

The distance between the two isn't that big. It's just that it exists.

[Sinsain]

bow dmg , vs gun dmg....

[Fannah]

I guess some people need to believe they could beat technology/guns with traditional weapon