Dear Tanks and DPS

[Kabooa]

Yeah, and now move to my actual point about what kind of performance this requires from your DDs and tanks compared to your healers?

Ranges from 40-90% percentiles if we exclude the literal very best team.

Checking individual scores shows the range closer to 70-80%, but 90% is fairly common as well while 40-50% shows up, but not as common..

You asked a question, I answered it. That's all. This isn't the time or the place to have a giant discussion on the subtleties of percentiles, or how there's a natural growth in character power due to the gear curve separate from a player's capability.

You asked if there are teams capable of this. There are. And as gear improves, the teams capable of it expand well beyond team number 1.

[Taika]

You asked if there are teams capable of this. There are. And as gear improves, the teams capable of it expand well beyond team number 1.

If you read my full post, it is very clear I did not mean to ask if there are teams capable of clearing it. For the great majority of raid groups working on this fight (and even OS3), the question would be completely irrelevant (how would it help them to know that there might be 1 team in the whole world that could actually pull it off?). What is relevant to the players actually doing this content right now, and, as such, for the discussion we're having here, is that by claiming that healers shouldn't have to DPS in these fights, the group will be placing completely unrealistic expectations to their tanks and DDs, while at the same time setting the bar for their healers far below average.

[QT_Melon]

You asked a question, I answered it.

What, that wasn't even the question. The question was about clearing it without healer DPS. I'm pretty sure each clear has some contributed Healer DPS.

[Kabooa]

What, that wasn't even the question. The question was about clearing it without healer DPS. I'm pretty sure each clear has some contributed Healer DPS.

It was a weighted question. Those are bad form to begin with, though the demand initially, as read, was to be shown a group that 'can' (as in, is capable) of clearing O4S without the healers dealing damage.

The top 100 groups easily pass this requirement, and I didn't feel the need to invest more effort into this, especially given the direction this turned. He then asked what sort of stress that puts on the DPS (Which, as stated, as most commonly in the 70-80%, with fair amount of 90s, and uncommonly, but present, those in the 40-50% range).

As for what he intended, it doesn't exist, plain and simple. It could exist, but it won't.

[QT_Melon]

It was a weighted question.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't weighted towards anything. The question was easy to follow. You spindoctored it.

[Kabooa]

No, it wasn't. It wasn't weighted towards anything. The question was easy to follow. You spindoctored it.

It's not doctoring something to look at a question beyond face value.

The request innocent enough. 'Show me a group that's cleared this content without Healers dealing damage.' While I'm certain that of the thousands of clears, there might be one, I frankly don't want to sift through every single available log (And those are only a fraction of the actual clears), to find it. Be honest, would you?

So from the start, you are given a request that is inherently -weighted- against you. As another example of what a weighted request is, show me a United States President that's a woman, or show me a United States President of Japanese descent.

So while finding such an example of the obviously weighted request would not only be a highly inefficient use of time, it might not yield fruit to begin with.

Thus we take another approach. We see if the scenario could exist based on existing factual data. And it can. It may even exist in some undocumented log as it is, but without a record we can't prove that.

So in the absence of being able to provide a documented example of the ludicrously weighted request, we simply show a scenario, backed by statistics and data, showing that it could exist were the criteria being met.

If that's spindoctoring, well.

Alright, guilty then I guess.

[Taika]

It's not doctoring something to look at a question beyond face value.

The request innocent enough. 'Show me a group that's cleared this content without Healers dealing damage.'

The spin doctoring was how you took the question out of it's context. Of course it might have been unintentional, since it took me a while to edit my whole post in (I was cooking ). But even after you must have seen the whole message, you intentionally ignored the context, thus spinning my point. Of course, your post works as a tangent to the topic, but as I already pointed out earlier, it really has no relevance to the discussion (unless the point you wish to make is that since it's theoretically possible for some extremely good groups to do it, it's alright to use that as a standard to standard raid groups).

In case it's still not clear for you, I really wasn't asking for anyone to try to find a group that has done it, just to consider what it would demand from different party members.

[Kabooa]

Stuff

Interesting tangent. I wasn't looking in my quick-edit box to the original reply on your post. I didn't see the edit-string that came with it. Apparently it loads the current post, not the one your page displays, when you hit reply. Awkward.

On point: Context included, no, I don't believe that. I didn't state any of this as an opinion, which is why I used statistical data.

My opinion on the matter is that if you're at a 0 on anything but deaths in a Savage encounter, you're doing it wrong.