Why is StormBlood full of dps that never aoe?

[SaitoHikari]

This is probably the only community where a debate over whether 100 x 3 is better than 250 x 1 can reach 16 pages.

Quoted for truth. This is literally the only community I've ever seen where people will go to such great lengths to justify holding back the party for personal enjoyment reasons.

Although I'm in the 'get it over with/get it done' camp, but then again, I'm literally a high tier Bard that does nuclear-tier damage that can pretty much carry so hard that nobody even notices that the co-DPS is actually only doing like 300-500 DPS higher than the tank in an expert roulette dungeon. Which has become depressingly common as of late. I'm not going to hold the party back by wasting time arguing with such people, and instead hope that making it really obvious through my performance that they're getting carried by a Bard of all things would spur them to improve.

[Maero]

I've met a "pro" red mage who answered me "sigh, why do people still believe red mage is an aoe job... It's just not" after I asked him why he kept using monotarget spells during 5-6+ mobs pull.
He also replied "400>100"

I tried my best but I failed.

That person puts shame to the Red Mage community, lol
They are so clueless.
I guess they removed scatter from their hotbar also, haha

[Shadowblind]

Is this an issue? I've rarely had a problem with dungeons post-60 DPS not AoEing . . . I've probably gotten lucky finding good DPS on Duty Finder then haha.

[Kabooa]

Quoted for truth. This is literally the only community I've ever seen where people will go to such great lengths to justify holding back the party for personal enjoyment reasons.

Depends entirely on what the 3x100 entails. I'm pretty sure Samurais for example do more by alternating between maintaining their buffs and using the basic AoE skills.

on Mach, the TP cost is hard to justify on just three targets.

Black mages, T3 over T4 on 3 targets allows you to rapid fire Thunderclouds, where T4 on 3 has a low chance for it. Flare has significant downtime and while it's basically Fire 4 - 15% per target, you can rapid fire Fire 4s compared to Flare Flare transposes.

Not to mention, based on the pack itself, if you have two weak creatures and one beefy creature, you might as well focus down the Beef with single target and let natural cleaves such as Foul, Death Flare, and other abilities deal with the weaker adds.

[SaitoHikari]

Depends entirely on what the 3x100 entails. I'm pretty sure Samurais for example do more by alternating between maintaining their buffs and using the basic AoE skills.

on Mach, the TP cost is hard to justify on just three targets.

Black mages, T3 over T4 on 3 targets allows you to rapid fire Thunderclouds, where T4 on 3 has a low chance for it. Flare has significant downtime and while it's basically Fire 4 - 15% per target, you can rapid fire Fire 4s compared to Flare Flare transposes.

Not to mention, based on the pack itself, if you have two weak creatures and one beefy creature, you might as well focus down the Beef with single target and let natural cleaves such as Foul, Death Flare, and other abilities deal with the weaker adds.

Yeah, of course there are exceptions.

We're referring to people who aren't even trying and won't even consider this kind of thing anyway.

[Thunda_Cat_SMASH]

Depends entirely on what the 3x100 entails. I'm pretty sure Samurais for example do more by alternating between maintaining their buffs and using the basic AoE skills.

Yeah, don't forget the TP cost. SAM AoE costs basically 300 every 2 GCDs. Even with Invigorate I can't go more than 8 even with using Tekka. Hard to justify that TP cost on less than 5 mobs when Tekka+Kyuten are preferred AoE filler.

SAM GCD AoE is the least sustainable in the game.

[uberrod9]

As a Bard I don't aoe because they took away the aoe attack I loved to use. The one I have left is a cone, and the second is always on cooldown...

[uberrod9]

Stop deflecting. You were given the data and you've been called out, move on or continue rambling.

I think it comes down to killing 4 mobs at a rate of 80 potency, vs killing 1 mob at a rate of 200+ potency. The 200+ potency version will die much quicker. Rather than have 4 mobs doing damage all at once on the tank, by removing individual targets faster, you reduce that damage being done faster.

So yeah 4 targets at 80 potency is more over all damage, but you still have 4 things hitting at full strength for longer. it's damage mitigation rather than raw damage output.

[AziraSyuren]

If I see DPS single target on large pulls, I generally try to spin them around so they can't hit positionals out of spite.

AoE was designed to be a DPS gain, and if people don't use it, they're just bad. No excuses.

[Kacho_Nacho]

Here's the thing. A mob at 1 health hits just as hard as a mob at several thousand health. So, the question is, is doing 100 X 3 really better for the party that 250 X 1?

Yes, I understand math. 300 dps is higher than 250; but, individually each mob took only 100 damage. Therefore, each mob will take longer to die.*

Meanwhile, if you single target one of the three mobs, that particular mob will die quicker and the party will take less damage overall because there are less mobs doing damage. The situation is not as clear cut as many posters are making it. There is a difference between doing maximum dps and doing effective dps.

Now, my standard approach to the challenge of facing multiple mobs at once is to do both AoE and direct damage. I apply DoT spells to as many mobs as I can then focus fire on the tank's current target. However, if the tank and the healer are both comfortable with the tank taking more damage, then I go nuts with the AoE spells. Because what damage dealer doesn't love seeing lots of numbers on their screen?

*A lot depends on how much health the mobs have also. Certainly, if you can kill all the mobs in one or two casts of your big AoE spell, then it is more effective to AoE. Like so many other things, it's a judgement call based on the situation you are facing and the information you have at hand.