5.08 Patch - DPS still not balanced.

[whiskeybravo]

If you've actually read my responses, I've mentioned the bottom five several times and only specifically mentioned those jobs to avoid repetition in my replies. At this point, you're arguing semantics because your actual argument has no grounds otherwise. It's getting rather sad when all you can rebuke is the difference between "1,500+" and "nearly 2,000"

No, your comment that I had a problem with, which is what we've being going back and forth about, clearly claimed BLM was nearly 2000 above RDM. It's not. It's about 1500 by your own example.

The problem is actually that you're clearly just not interested in playing fair. Otherwise you wouldn't have had to include dancer in order to justify your exaggeration of the disparity.

Just keep shifting those goal posts.

Nor did I imply you said it. Once again, I implore you to read my replies if you're going respond. What I said is your comment implied a contributing factor for the big three having such a dominant lead in overall damage was due to them being apart of speed kills. It's both a flawed and disingenuous presence because it's wholly reliant on the remaining jobs not being competitive. As that isn't the case, it has little relevant impact. In fact, we needs only look at the tanks to disprove this nonsense. Warrior is vastly underrepresented yet percentiles consistently show it being close enough to the remaining tanks that balance isn't an issue.

Please quote where I either said massive or dominant lead as a result. And if you can't then stop putting words in my comments or implying I said things I didn't. Just because you can't wrap your head around the concept doesn't mean you get to make stuff up. I know there is some word that's defined as "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." but I just can't think of it.

That isn't how balancing works because it gives an inaccurate assessment of the job's performance. How many times do I have to spell this out for you?Looking at percentages where people have serious rotational or mechanical issues will result in false conclusions such as the assumption Black Mage isn't dominating Red Mage because at say, 20% the gap is much smaller than 95%. Only the latter is relevant because it depicts two players at equal skill, playing the job at a high level where overcapping or dropping resources won't skew the results.

You don't have to spell anything out for me since I'm well aware of what the statistics represent. So let me spell something out for you since it's such an apparently a difficult concept:

After some number of weeks the percentiles begin to become gear locked. It doesn't matter how well you play if you can't get an orange until you get weapon, therefore percentiles to do not automatically represent a given level of "skill". After some point in time your item level and gear simply has a much larger influence on breaking through to higher percentiles. That is why gear acquisition must play a role in the spread of the statistics. If the more dominant jobs are gearing up faster, it pushes their higher percentiles to a further degree compared to jobs which aren't being played as much. By the very same token as people start gearing up more jobs and running them through, the higher percentiles get pushed further out of reach for those lacking the same gear. Even if the jobs are played at an identical skill level the higher percentile is out of reach until you get the gear. To further illustrate this point, we can compare the number of e4s logs between DRG (10,312) and NIN (2,399). This would certainly seem to indicate there are more geared DRGs out there than geared NINs, and so the overall average of the 95th percentile DRG would be higher than the overall average of 95th percentile NIN - because the 95th percentile NIN doesn't have as many players pushing it's average up. Another way of putting it would be NIN is further away from realizing it's full potential compared to DRG. It doesn't have to be a large degree for this to make sense, as I stated previously even 1% is relatively meaningful within the current operating margin.

I looked at the 25% percentile for reasons I expressed in a previous comment. Upon doing some quick math, indeed at the lowest percentile with which a group can clear (full group of 8x 25%'ers) the group with the combination of weakest jobs will be 500 short of e1s enrage, while a group with dominant jobs will clear with 2500 to spare. I didn't care to do the other turns since I'm sure it'll play out similarly, but that's a pretty big difference with several different things that can be inferred. For one it aligns with the claims being made in this thread that it's more difficult for certain comps to meet damage checks. Fair enough. But on the flip side, we are talking about 25% which means there's plenty of room for improvement. Therefore the claim that taking certain jobs is a detriment, while it has some merit, is really more of an obfuscation of the facts. The fact is you only need to be a little above 25th percentile (as a group) in order to clear e1s (at least) even with the worst composition of jobs.

The second point these particular statistics illuminate is the disparity between a group of upper and lower jobs, again in this situation -500 to +2500 around enrage. That's something that should be looked at, do the upper jobs need that big of an advantage or do the lower jobs need to be boosted by at least enough to clear in the same situation? I haven't made a claim one way or the other, everyone will have their own opinion. Personally I think they could meet in the middle a bit.

You're basically making up an argument that I never disputed. I simply wanted to know for myself what the minimum requirements looked like and it's relevant statistics. Never did I make a claim that balance should be focused on the lower percentiles, again that's something you made up on your own for argument's sake. Citing the lower percentiles for an example to back up a claim is not the same as basing a philosophy of balance around them.

And I'll go one step further. If you won't bother to look at the lower statistics relative to the argument that DPS needs to be adjusted because enrages, then you clearly aren't interested in that being a real issue. By focusing on the upper statistics of potential, you are focusing on the ego of a job instead of it's actual utility, because the upper statistics don't indicate any sort of relationship with "hitting enrage". It doesn't matter if you compare a 95th DNC to a 95th BLM, they're both killing it and in neither case is their contribution detrimental to the team in any sense whatsoever.

To hearken back to Lynn's comment with which I sort of disagree, we do need to provide feedback, but it needs to be reasonable feedback. There is no place for exaggerated claims and incomplete pictures. The actual situation calls for something in the range of ~5% one way or the other. There are slight issues with DPS checks, and there are slight issues among players who feel their efforts aren't proportionately accounted for. The latter having a worse impact on the community. They've already said they are addressing some issues, clearly it's ongoing effort and we know very well how they like to take their time. In the meantime, there's no actual issue in jobs clearing content, only hypothetical situations. Any group putting in the effort will get their kills if they haven't already. The main issue is perception which we as players have a huge role in shaping, possibly even more than the devs.