Quote Originally Posted by Rogue View Post
I agree with your point, BUT

this isnt for example, a lancer doing more damage than a pugilist or something like that.. in a pinch people would still be quite happy to take pugs or mrds or whatever was considered "lesser" DD

the point here is that archers are invulnerable to AOE attacks (because of their range obviously) something which SE is very well aware of yet STILL give mobs huge circular AOE attacks..

to sum up, SE could have made those circular AOE attacks single target and there might be a pug/mrd/lnc in the party instead of an archer.. the mob would still be getting hit the same amount of times..

or they could use some imagination like say have donut shaped AOE AND circular AOE so the archers wouldnt have an advantage over close range. OR making the mob do single target attacks on random party members... IE there is no benefit to stacking archers

SE allways seem to include needless elements in fights that encourage class stacking, in the case of ifrit people took lancers because they could attack out of range of seer but archers have animations lock... solution- get rid of/replace seer and dont give disadvantages to inbuilt game mechanics like.. "animation lock"

conclusion it isnt the players its the developers, sorry.
I do agree to this statement in particular in a way. Both ourselves and the developers are equal to blame. Dev's fault for adding in elements that cause stack parties (Lancer on Ifrit for Seer), and ourselves for not willing to make a diverse setup. It is kind of a balance issue there itself. We should learn to be diverse in parties, while Dev's need to give less incentive for stack partying. I don't know what they are thinking when they know this is an issue.

MRD, King, and BLM AoE are hurtful to the point you don't want a close range melee in there. If that was simply toned down a bit, it would still be challenging and ARC wouldn't be as high in demand. ARC still overall does more DPS however, but that is a different issue on balance.