5.08 Patch - DPS still not balanced.

[ForteNightshade]

Lol

This thread is the bandwagon of strawmen complaining about stuff SE already told us they are addressing

But keep beating that horse. Maybe it'll happen faster.

Find me a single post, comment or interview from the development team that mentions the low damage of Summoner, Red Mage, Bard, Machinist or Dancer. I suspect I'll be waiting quite a while since Kajv already covered the only mention those respective jobs received.

Furthermore, it's both disingenuous and a flat cop out to insinuate good balance is somehow unachievable. Without changing a single aspect of the aforementioned jobs, simply increasing their potencies solves this issue, albeit in a rather boring manner. They already did this with Ninja, thus dispelling this nonsensical idea it's impossible. What it boils down to is these jobs are being overly punished for utility they either no longer have or isn't nearly as valuable as they devs believe. Verraise comes to mind, which became a significant issue for Red Mage during Stormblood. They ultimately had to buff it due to people disregarding the job in favor of Summoner. Why they taxed it yet again is beyond me, but the result has been the same. Except now Black Mage is the one pulling ahead.

Tell you what. If you can explain to us what justification there is for Black Mage to pull nearly two thousand more rDPS than Red Mage or Dragoon to be a thousand above Bard, I'll admit this is all hogwash and we're overreacting. And just for clarification purposes, please remember we're discussing raid DPS—the statistic which accounts for buffs. Therefore, the discrepancies I listed are accounting for all four jobs at total damage contribution, buffs included.

[whiskeybravo]

Tell you what. If you can explain to us what justification there is for Black Mage to pull nearly two thousand more rDPS than Red Mage or Dragoon to be a thousand above Bard, I'll admit this is all hogwash and we're overreacting.

Nice exaggeration. There's 1700 difference tops. And at the lower (but still functionally clearable percentiles) that drops to as low as a 1000 difference.

Why did SE refuse to create male Vierra? Because that's simply what they decided to do.

Why does BLM deal more damage than RDM? Because that's how SE decided to order them.

And since it seems like the last few commentors needed a reminder:

100% parity is a pipe dream. Not realistic. 95% would be pretty damn good. Which is only about ~5% off from where they are right now.

[HyoMinPark]

Nice exaggeration. There's 1700 difference tops. And at the lower (but still functionally clearable percentiles) that drops to as low as a 1000 difference.

>nearly 2,000 difference
>”There’s only 1700 tops.”

This is purely a semantics argument to attempt to discredit. Nearly 2,000 isn’t really that huge of an exaggeration: it’s still a relatively large amount; too large.

Lower percentiles are not the best examples to try and prove any point. They don’t take into consideration what jobs are truly capable of, but instead look at them purely at an average performance. Should we balance around the average?

Why did SE refuse to create male Vierra? Because that's simply what they decided to do.

Why does BLM deal more damage than RDM? Because that's how SE decided to order them.

You’ve been really quick to call out strawmans in this thread, but you’re making your own right here.

[Dogempire]

Nice exaggeration. There's 1700 difference tops. And at the lower (but still functionally clearable percentiles) that drops to as low as a 1000 difference.

Why did SE refuse to create male Vierra? Because that's simply what they decided to do.

Why does BLM deal more damage than RDM? Because that's how SE decided to order them.

And since it seems like the last few commentors needed a reminder:

Nobody cares about the lower percentiles.

I don't think anyone in the history of this game has ever unironically complained about ice mages doing more dps than an emote spamming samurai with various macros with attached sound effects for each skill they use.

1700 dps is a HUGE difference, it's literally the dps clear requirement +200 dps going from E2S to E3S, and 85% of the dps requirement jump from E3S to E4S assuming you get the slow instance.

ONE class is all it takes to push your party dps over the enrage timer's dps reqirement. Not two classes, not three, ONE.

[whiskeybravo]

Nobody cares about the lower percentiles.

I don't think anyone in the history of this game has ever unironically complained about ice mages doing more dps than an emote spamming samurai with various macros with attached sound effects for each skill they use.

1700 dps is a HUGE difference, it's literally the dps clear requirement +200 dps going from E2S to E3S, and 85% of the dps requirement jump from E3S to E4S assuming you get the slow instance.

ONE class is all it takes to push your party dps over the enrage timer's dps reqirement. Not two classes, not three, ONE.

Nobody cares because it discredits their entire argument. Fair enough I suppose.

That's OK. It's only been what 6 weeks or so since savage released? How much of the community has even cleared or attempting savage? Half? A third? A quarter?

I'm no more stubborn than anyone else. If you don't agree then you don't agree, doesn't change a thing.

[ForteNightshade]

Nobody cares because it discredits their entire argument. Fair enough I suppose.

That's OK. It's only been what 6 weeks or so since savage released? How much of the community has even cleared or attempting savage? Half? A third? A quarter?

I'm no more stubborn than anyone else. If you don't agree then you don't agree, doesn't change a thing.

Does it ever get tiresome building all these strawmen?

You don't balance around lower tier parses because people aren't playing the jobs to their potential. Therefore, the data will be misleading at best or flat out useless. Look at say, 50%, and you'll see Black Mages dropping Eno-chan; Dragoons overcapping their Eyes; Monks losing Greased Lightning, and etc. All of this makes the data pointless. Hence why you look at the higher end percentiles where these mistakes won't occur. This gives a far more accurate indication of what the actual strengths and weaknesses of each job is.

As for clear rates. Enough people have cleared the statistics average out. It won't make a difference if we evaluate now or two months from now. Red Mages aren't suddenly go up by a 1,000 DPS. In fact, the gap is likely to widen—and the stigma increase when Ultimate comes out.

[whiskeybravo]

Does it ever get tiresome building all these strawmen?

You don't balance around lower tier parses because people aren't playing the jobs to their potential. Therefore, the data will be misleading at best or flat out useless. Look at say, 50%, and you'll see Black Mages dropping Eno-chan; Dragoons overcapping their Eyes; Monks losing Greased Lightning, and etc. All of this makes the data pointless. Hence why you look at the higher end percentiles where these mistakes won't occur. This gives a far more accurate indication of what the actual strengths and weaknesses of each job is.

As for clear rates. Enough people have cleared the statistics average out. It won't make a difference if we evaluate now or two months from now. Red Mages aren't suddenly go up by a 1,000 DPS. In fact, the gap is likely to widen—and the stigma increase when Ultimate comes out.

And judging only the higher end parses of groups which have been collecting gear and optimizing over the last 6 weeks, compared to the more casual base which doesn't care about "the meta" is indicative of.. what exactly?

I did some napkin math and will semi-concede on the disparity. At 25% percentile, which I know from previous investigations is about the bare minimum you can have as a group to clear content (I wondered in previous raid tiers whether a group of all grays could meet dps checks, they can't), the bottom 8 jobs (2 melee, 1 caster, 1 ranged) is about 500 dps short of meeting enrage on e1s, compared to the highest combination which is 2500 over the check.

So does that mean that they should be given a free pass for poor play? I don't really think so. Someone needs to step up above the bare minimum, preferably all of them. Additionally, perhaps the top 4 actually need to be nerfed a bit, compared to the bottom 4 being bumped up, because for the most part people would rather take a hand out instead of trying harder.

Bottom line is this. If you're a good player than it doesn't really matter what job you play, you can find a group and clear the content. Short of that all you're doing is looking for an excuse to justify either your lack of ability, the lack of ability of your group, or anything else in between - rather than looking at yourself. That doesn't mean SE shouldn't do anything, as I've stated repeatedly in my posts, but there are 2 sides to every story. If you can't complete the content it's not your job, or combination of jobs in your group. It's you.

[ForteNightshade]

And judging only the higher end parses of groups which have been collecting gear and optimizing over the last 6 weeks, compared to the more casual base which doesn't care about "the meta" is indicative of.. what exactly?

What each job is capable of when pushed to its near full potential. How is this so difficult to understand? Those optimized runs are precisely the data you want because it's the most accurate representation of the jobs' performance. For argument's sake, let's pretend Black Mage's max potential is 17,000 and Red Mage is 15,000. If you balance around these figures, the bottom inevitably increases for Red Mage, thus both the lower tier and higher tier benefit. Conversely, if you consider the lower tier where several mistakes and other outside variables occur, you can get a clouded picture—like Black Mage may be underpowered because at 30% Dragoon pulls ahead. This approach leads to issue like we've seen in the past with how insanely overpowered Warrior, Bard and Summoner all were at one point or another. Or asinine remarks like "we don't consider Dragoon when balancing Bard and Machinist damage."

Bottom line is this. If you're a good player than it doesn't really matter what job you play, you can find a group and clear the content. Short of that all you're doing is looking for an excuse to justify either your lack of ability, the lack of ability of your group, or anything else in between - rather than looking at yourself. That doesn't mean SE shouldn't do anything, as I've stated repeatedly in my posts, but there are 2 sides to every story. If you can't complete the content it's not your job, or combination of jobs in your group. It's you.

The "bottom line" is you need to stop strawmanning. No one is saying you can't clear content. We're talking about how certain jobs are widely inferior to others, thus demanding more effort from specific comps not due to the content challenging them but their preferred job simply being weak. There isn't two sides to this story because it's a dichotomy. Either the jobs are balanced or they aren't.

[Dogempire]

Nobody cares because it discredits their entire argument. Fair enough I suppose.

That's OK. It's only been what 6 weeks or so since savage released? How much of the community has even cleared or attempting savage? Half? A third? A quarter?

I'm no more stubborn than anyone else. If you don't agree then you don't agree, doesn't change a thing.

So let me get this straight.

You think that people who can't even maintain a proper rotation are a perfectly viable metric for job balance, and that it would be perfectly viable to choose which jobs need buffs and nerfs based off of the most incompetent players? Because that's the point you seem to be making and defending.

[whiskeybravo]

So let me get this straight.

You think that people who can't even maintain a proper rotation are a perfectly viable metric for job balance, and that it would be perfectly viable to choose which jobs need buffs and nerfs based off of the most incompetent players? Because that's the point you seem to be making and defending.

It's called "not looking at a single data set on which to base my assumptions". There are as many intricacies as there are generalizations, and the intricacies are what I've repeatedly brought up my posts because for the most part people seem to only want to cling to a generalization or 2 and throw the rest out.