Disembowel: Please Fix this Mess

[Dualgunner]

I would say both DRG and the MCH/BRD would need buffs if Disembowel were removed. It's 5% of the Dragoon's damage too. Taking disembowel away without buffing it at all puts it not only lose between 300 to 600 rDPS, but also about 276 personal DPS based on this average.

Could also use results like this to show it off. With piercing counted, DRG is still weaker in total than the Monk. Now subtract 300 from DRG, and he falls to 6698. He's now leagues below the other melees. Now multiply that by 0.95 because of his own lost disembowel, and that drops even further to 6363 total dps.

Remember the MNK is at 7,248 and the NIN remains at 6,924. The Bard's total dps doesn't change, staying at 6,707 because FFLogs filters the piercing out in that total dps either way. The Dragoon sans piercing is the weakest DPS in this speedkill. By about ~340 dps.

I do not support the idea that DRG should be buffed in this theoretical no-piercing world but MCH/BRD shouldn't. However, DRG suffers worse for losing piercing than MCH/BRD would.

[Kitfox]

I do not support the idea that DRG should be buffed in this theoretical no-piercing world but MCH/BRD shouldn't. However, DRG suffers worse for losing piercing than MCH/BRD would.

The total rdps provided by the class is the reason why I think that MCH/BRD shouldn't be buffed while DRG should.

Whether or not BRD/MCH should be buffed is an issue separate from Disembowel, in my opinion. Part of the reason why their personal dps is tuned so low is because SE consider "mechanical interference" as one of the balancing arguments and both BRD and MCH are regarded as 100% uptime never interrupted classes. On the opposite side we have BLM with incredibly high personal dps due to their vulnerability to mechanics. But even with BLMs weakness to movement they're able to maintain extremely high uptime in most encounters, so personally I don't think it's necessarily a good way to balance the classes. I also feel like MCH's burst reliance isn't quite taken into account in those uptime considerations. When you look at fights like O7S where MCHs are forced to delay their bursts, even if they're always able to attack targets at any range, they lose a ton of dps compared to something like O8S God Kefka.

[KDSilver]

I personnaly wonder why they didn't give piercing to RDM.
Currently, slashing isn't a prob because SAM/NIN/WAR can provide it, so there's always an option. 3 classes / 5
Blunt as well because only monk needs it and has its own way to get it. 1/1

Here, the problem is piercing is a drg exclusive. 1/4 (rdm doesn't really count that much but still is here as a piercing user for its physical damage oGCD)
To counteract this, they could have given rdm a piercing debuff as well.

As for if they should totally remove every weapon damage debuff, I don't know, I like synergy between classes, that's what make party composition being a thing you want to think of. But more options could be nice indeed, cause exclusive debuff make those classes being too centric.

[Remedi]

Removing disembowel will simply make triple melee the de facto meta, it's not just disembowel making double ranged good, but also the good amount of utility that exist in the ranged role.
If the goal of removing disembowel is to make casters a good option, then the role of casters must become better either in terms of pure dmg or utility itself. The problem of casters lies that their dmg has no sinergy and it is linked to healers which UNLIKE tanks do not dps 100% of time to do their job.
This makes physical buffs stronger than magical ones by a lot and when you consider that magical buffs are extremely rare it makes the casters much more worse.
Removing piercing in short it's not a good solution to this problem especially when the triple melee is creeping closer and closer to usurp the double ranged spot

[Bourne_Endeavor]

Removing disembowel will simply make triple melee the de facto meta

Uh, no it wouldn't. You try and convince one of the three melees or tanks to completely disengage during during Diabolic Wind (doable if the tank eats one), Charka, Virus or Second Forsaken. Triple Melee has always been superior in a vacuum but mechanic make it scarcely worthwhile. For reference sake, you will lose upwards of twenty seconds of uptime in Guardian on Virus alone. That equates to two full combos from DRG. Even RDM, the weakest range DPS in the game, will be several hundred points ahead due to the sheer amount of damage thrown away. Triple melee isn't remotely close to usurping the meta, and they never will.

[HyoMinPark]

Removing piercing in short it's not a good solution to this problem especially when the triple melee is creeping closer and closer to usurp the double ranged spotp

Triple melee, as of this tier, is only viable in 2 fights: V5S and V6S. V7S requires one melee to disengage during both Ink and Chakras, unnecessarily losing uptime, and V8S has Second Forsaken where ranged have to bait prey puddles—something that cannot be passed off to a tank or a healer because they have towers to deal with.

Triple melee could not possibly be a viable comp so long as mechanics like these are present in high-end content. Because no melee in their right mind is going to willingly disengage from a boss.

[Remedi]

I said it's creeping, not that it's always better, but if those examples were not a thing you could bet that triple melee would be viable and maybe better in those fights too.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

I said it's creeping, not that it's always better, but if those examples were not a thing you could bet that triple melee would be viable and maybe better in those fights too.

Creeping implies it's already occurring when that simply isn't the case. Of course triple melee would be viable without those mechanics, but we yet to have a single tier where that happens. Regardless, you implied in the context removing Disembowel will make triple melee a triple when that won't ever happen.

[Remedi]

Well 2 fights out of 4 implies it's already occruing at least in my opinion, fights mechanics will always be in the way of certain comps, but it's also how casters were somewhat viable before thanks to some fights design needing a source of magic dmg( though some ppl circumvented this with healers dps)
I still stand on what I said, removing disembowel, without reinforcing casters in some way will simply be a gift for melees and nothing more

[EllieShadeflare]

(snide link to previous post in another thread)]

Since you're really not gonna respond to my other points, I may as well be lazy too and post a rebuttal in a lazy and snide format... which happened to be in the next post after yours in that thread.

See, I could maybe understand, say, all enemies having an actual Defense stat that Disembowel then reduces. I could even understand Piercing damage, if damage types are to remain either taking greater advantage of Defense Penetration or taking a greater hit from Defense normally (i.e. Blunt automatically ignores x portion of Defense, Slashing a lesser portion, and Piercing none at all, but has higher base potency to compensate), such that Disembowel has a stronger impact on Piercing damage than on Slashing and Blunt.

But even then you'd run into an imbalance between Full Party and lesser-sized parties, as whatever pDPS remains after making Dragoon rDPS-equitable in an 8-man party would be too little for it to be equitable in, say, a 4-man party. While this may be irrelevant until such a time as difficult content is made for anything other than 8-man content, it's a fundamental issue with all means of indirect damage contribution in this game, as each scales infinitely. A better solution may be to provide a modifier which depletes over actual (e.g. bonus damage) use, greatly tightening scalability (though potentially adding some additional rotational variance).

But having a sole provider of a damage buff, even a "mere" 5% one, hasn't been acceptable since its provider was already required just to avoid duplicate jobs (i.e. pre-Ninja Warrior). Unless Bard or Machinist somehow lose rDPS by lack of some alternative utility (e.g. an additional caster to Mana Shift them, in place of that Piercing buff, if they were actually worthwhile targets for MS) to make up for their pDPS bonus, Dragoon should not be the sole provider of such a large advantage. More even than it binds Bard and Machinist to Dragoon, it bind Dragoon to them, to the point than any other melee (except perhaps, sadly, SAM) would be better taken if no ranged DPS is present.

[Removing Disembowel and compensating Dragoon potencies for its personal bonus damage and rDPS loss] would be the best and easiest approach. They should do this to every weapon type debuff. would be the best and easiest approach. They should do this to every weapon type debuff.

That, however, seems unnecessary. Slashing and Blunt debuffs both manage to make something decently fun out of those debuffs. The only problematic one is truly just Disembowel, both in that it feels unimpactful for the Dragoon itself and has too great of scalability outside himself.

From that same thread, since you were quickly shut down by someone a bit more reasonable than you. Another point, (though I will say we might disagree in whether or not BRD and MCH should be buffed to compensate)

I can explain this pretty easily.

Every job that applies their own Permanent Resistance Down takes that into account when tallying their final damage output. This goes into their 'budget' and includes their defensive options, their party buffing, and any utility they bring.

The issue is we currently have jobs that don't adhere to these rules.

Warrior, Monk, Bard, and Machinist.

Mach and bard are pretty well balanced without Disembowel, and frankly, adding it to them likely means you just get dumped on base power so you end up in the same spot.

And another!

They feel it's too strong to give to rant ged themselves....so they'll continue to let DRG completely monopolize the buff for no actual reason....ok?

They need to let Disembowl go already, it was balanced in 2.0, where you only had two melee to choose from anyway. Things are different now, give ranged their own debuff, or at least give someone else the piercing debuff as well so DRG doesn't monopolize it.

I'd rather not be lazy again. At the risk of sounding rude, I'd rather have something substantial to deal with than something that was already debunked in the same thread.