It's not, though. Pure dps jobs see literally no increase in their fflogs parses for playing around their raid (de)buffs, because the benefit is removed from either metric, rDPS or aDPS. Yet they are expected to play around those raid (de)buffs for the benefit of the team. For this additional effort for which their metrics of performance will never increase they are called "selfish".
Meanwhile, jobs whose rDPS is literally carried by their party are considered the more "selfless" jobs.
Ironic? Perhaps. Distorted? Not at all.
I'm criticizing the nomenclature for exactly that reason. The topic has not been taken out of context by considering how the term is erroneously used. The erroneous use of the term IS the topic. There was a point when the term made sense, since logs were based on pDPS and pDPS upon padding. (Once stigmatized accordingly, the sheer inertia of the term "selfish dps" as an equivalent to rDPS-inferior dps job kept buffed pure-DPS classes that were by then providing more rDPS than Ninjas out of many a PF.) Now, in ShB, pure-pDPS jobs have been overtuned in turn, each at the highest levels of rDPS, while only padding rDPS jobs while receiving zero padding for themselves.
I could understand using the term "selfish" dps when there were pDPS who wanted as much padding as possible, despite that literally everyone wanted as much padding as possible and your average pure pDPS player usually saw the least benefit from padding and therefore often had the least insistence on it in their compositions. But the term makes no sense now.That is, quite literally, "personal dps only = 'selfish'; rDPS included = not 'selfish'." And I'm not faulting that explanation of the term. It's the term itself that I find incredibly counter-intuitive in explanations to players new to rDPS/pDPS, the meta, optimization, and the like.
The misnomer was understandable, if costly, when fflogs ran on pDPS and pDPS-only jobs could actually be padded instead of only ever giving padding to others. It's now the opposite, so I don't understand why we're still using it when trying to explain things clearly. It'd be like an automobile mechanic talking about the "engine" of an electric car to someone who wouldn't know what an engine is either, so the analogy is of zero use -- instead providing only further erroneous complication. Or, heck, think of it as a mentor explaining an AoE which forms an unbroken circle around oneself as a "donut AoE" despite that AoE still having its center. It's not trading accuracy for clarity; it's just annoyingly wrong.



Reply With Quote

