Summoner is doing too much in 5.10

[Myon88]

"I think I'm better than you, so without making any evaluation on you, and without knowing you at all, I'm going to assume you're wrong"

I'm not better than you, I just have more firsthand experience, and that's important when we're trying to uncover the facts of the situation.

I even provided explicit examples of why you'd prefer on demand utility like vercure, can you do the same? Anyone who has progged ucob on red mage can attest to that. Or we can just wait till ultimate comes out in a week and compare notes, everyone will be starting from an even playing field then. I encourage everyone to try it. It's easy to make judgment calls from a position of comfort, but some insights into job design can only be gleaned when you push them to their limit.

[Akiudo]

The advantages are irrelevant if they are dwarfed by the downsides to a massive extent. Healing throughput is less valuable than the control you have over it, especially when you as the dps are not the primary source of healing.

see, i agree with you that advantages are irrelevant if the are dwarfed by disadvantages, where i don't agree (in a general setting) is that this is the case. in specific cases such as the one you cited? fair, the fact you got vercure when you need it, on whom you need it and you can actually freely control it is totally great and makes it really useful in such a case were you can make use of it, just that this comes back to my last point i made later on, not everyone and everything is progression raiding, if anything the vast majority is not, and as it stands not only is that a really small part of the playerbase, but that really small part of the player base isn't even held back by it. you said it yourself, you're going redmage to learn the fight before switching back. everyone thats not trying to push ultimate or wants the final savage turn down in 2 weeks top gets fucked over as it stands because you try to apply a value it may very well have for a specific scenario to the general playerbase thats as far from this scenario as the sun is from the earth and it doesn't even do its job, its not stopping the most hardcore of hardcore from (ab)using redmage to learn fights, it just punishes everyone else.

It's stronger even after considering the fact that it only affects melee. Rdps doesn't care about damage types. Embolden just buffs people so hard (or devotion is so weak) that even buffing only physical it still contributes way more dps.

I don't know, you tell me. I'm not the one nitpicking the differences in raid utility between jobs and trying to spin it in a way that makes summoner look

while you weren't the one starting the argument you did indeed smack it down with "embolden is way stronger" , not with "it doesn't matter as its raid dps either way" so yes, i'm telling you, embolden being way stronger (which it is) doesn't matter squat as it all comes down as "raid dps" either way, now the fact it only affect physicals is a different story as that does make a difference because assuming smn and rdm were perfectly balanced aside from buffs(thats not about numbers being equal or rezz being "x-good" or whatever, lets just say there balance is "perfect" doesn't matter what this means to anyone in particular for this) in a regular composition it would still mean redmage loses out the moment they get paired with a second caster

If summoner is strong, everyone benefits right? Yeah I'm in total agreement.

see, saying everyone benefits is an assumption at best, i certainly did not say that and i also won't agree with it, i don't want a weak summoner, but the stronger one class is the weaker the rest are in comparison which in turn effects raidbalance and what having an optimal/suboptimal group composition means to people.

Yes, it's worth that much, and yes, black mage is still 'smoking' summoner so I see nothing to be worried about.

for whom is it worth that much ? for a progression raider ? for those it would be worth 5 times as much, again as you yourself said, your going rdm to learn the fight and than switch right back. multy rezz will allways be worth it for the most hardcore to learn a fight no matter the dps deficiency they hand out to redmage, for everyone else ? a typical group won't do shit with the ability to rezz 5 times in a row aside from delaying their wipe 30 seconds while having learned nothing. (and seeing how many players actually raid/how many of those actually clear the raid even a 50% group clearing titan ex is allready in the top 5% of the playerbase, and yes, not every great player raids and not every terrible player didn't still manage to get carried by a competent group, but most people that don't even try to enter a raid ever are not the top performing bunch)

also you seem to be having a funny definition of "blackmage smoking summoner" considering summoner is outperforming blackmage on basically every percentile, its great that blackmage has a higher max if you just let him soak everything and let others deal with mechanics or whatever, doesn't mean the fact summoner is beating out blackmage at every percentile up to 95% is irrelevant

[wereotter]

<ranking explained>
TLDR: "It's a tier list! We aren't sick of these yet!"

I don't 100% agree with your final conclusion, but agree with your logic, and appreciate you explaining it for others. I think that jobs that natively need to stay still partially or fully to do their skills should have a higher DPS potential than jobs that have no such restriction. And as such, the DPS potential for RDM and SMN should always be higher than the potential for any of the ranged physical jobs. Like you said that fights that are movement intensive, especially with mechanics that have a point-blank range from the boss that require both melee and casters to disengage should be those fights where ranged physical shine. But those roles should, in a fight with no movement required, have lower DPS potential than both melee and casting roles.

Though in the end, I do think that the differential between these types of jobs, especially when adjusting for raid contribution, should be minimal. Ideally non-existent, but I realize that would be an impossibility, so looking for very minor differences between job choices should be the goal. Every job should be viable for all content, and I would say that's most likely true. In the end, unless a job is just performing well outside that range of balance, the differences people complain about are pretty minor.

[Akiudo]

I don't 100% agree with your final conclusion, but agree with your logic, and appreciate you explaining it for others. I think that jobs that natively need to stay still partially or fully to do their skills should have a higher DPS potential than jobs that have no such restriction. And as such, the DPS potential for RDM and SMN should always be higher than the potential for any of the ranged physical jobs. Like you said that fights that are movement intensive, especially with mechanics that have a point-blank range from the boss that require both melee and casters to disengage should be those fights where ranged physical shine. But those roles should, in a fight with no movement required, have lower DPS potential than both melee and casting roles.

Though in the end, I do think that the differential between these types of jobs, especially when adjusting for raid contribution, should be minimal. Ideally non-existent, but I realize that would be an impossibility, so looking for very minor differences between job choices should be the goal. Every job should be viable for all content, and I would say that's most likely true. In the end, unless a job is just performing well outside that range of balance, the differences people complain about are pretty minor.

to add to this, the problem at least with the physical ranged role as is is that even in those "heavy movement fights" they don't shine, they just look a little less like a turd then everywhere else

[wereotter]

to add to this, the problem at least with the physical ranged role as is is that even in thos "hey movement fights" they don't shine, they just look a little less like a turd then everywhere else

That's fair, and also why I don't think the differential should be massive. Also, though, now bard and dancer both have 100% up time on raid buffs which is another reason that they might be lower, but also I can agree that given players ability to minimize caster movement and work around mechanics, the difference doesn't need to be huge, but it needs to be enough to justify having a caster else raid groups will just say "if we don't' have to plan movement around the caster and can get the same benefit from taking two ranged physical, why shouldn't we just do that?"

[Akiudo]

That's fair, and also why I don't think the differential should be massive. Also, though, now bard and dancer both have 100% up time on raid buffs which is another reason that they might be lower, but also I can agree that given players ability to minimize caster movement and work around mechanics, the difference doesn't need to be huge, but it needs to be enough to justify having a caster else raid groups will just say "if we don't' have to plan movement around the caster and can get the same benefit from taking two ranged physical, why shouldn't we just do that?"

as i really don't get the sentiment, and i'm not trying to start an argument but why do you (its mostly a general question, but you seem to at least try to see the other site which is something a large part of the forum sadly fails at) believe having strong (or in this case allways active) raid buffs should mean lower dps ? i mean lower personal dps of course, thats not a question, but why lower raid dps ? what USE is having a 100% uptime group buff if the buff gives 1000 raid dps if in exchange squares takes 1100 personal dps from me ?

[Kabooa]

as i really don't get the sentiment, and i'm not trying to start an argument but why do you (its mostly a general question, but you seem to at least try to see the other site which is something a large part of the forum sadly fails at) think believe having strong (or in this case allways active) raid buffs should mean lower dps ? i mean lower personal dps of course, thats not a question, but why lower raid dps ? what USE is having a 100% uptime group buff if the buff gives 1000 raid dps if in exchange squares takes 1100 personal dps from me ?

To me, raid buffs aren't the reason for Personal DPS being lower.

Non-combat utility is, and raid buffs ease up the loss taken away there.

The problem we run into is either the utility has been removed and not subsequently compensated for, or the utility in question is never useful, so it taking up any of the stat budget just leaves a sour taste. And the problem with that problem is the inherent value to the utility, when it cannot be quantified, is subjective.

[wereotter]

as i really don't get the sentiment, and i'm not trying to start an argument but why do you (its mostly a general question, but you seem to at least try to see the other site which is something a large part of the forum sadly fails at) believe having strong (or in this case allways active) raid buffs should mean lower dps ? i mean lower personal dps of course, thats not a question, but why lower raid dps ? what USE is having a 100% uptime group buff if the buff gives 1000 raid dps if in exchange squares takes 1100 personal dps from me ?

The balance might not be right across roles, but within your role, say you bring 15,000 DPS as a bard (just throwing a number out there, I'm not sure what people should actually expect of bards) and you bring your song buffs that were just added, your mobility, nature's minne, etc. And then say a machinist also does 15,000 DPS but has none of those tools. Then in that case the obvious choice for any forming raid team is to bring the bard and not the machinist. That means they need to calculate in an 8-man group how much extra damage a bard is bringing to the table over that machinist and adjust the numbers accordingly.

So let's say over the course of a fight that bard is boosting everyone else's damage by about 1%, and for the same of making the math easy on myself rather than calculate for every role, let's say the other three DPS do 15,000, tanks do 10,000 and healers do 8,000.

In this scenario, you're adding:
150 DPS to the other three DPS jobs for a total of 450
100 DPS to both tanks for a total of 200
80 DPS for both healers for a total of 160

That means, in this situation, for a bard to break even with that machinist, your DPS should be 14,370 instead of 15,000. If your'e higher than that, you've made another job useless. This is a balance that's hard for the developers to create and maintain, especially once they realize that a design for one job has failed making it do more or less damage than they expected it should. Then once they add those buffs to underperforming jobs it can further throw off the balance they're trying to maintain. So in your example, adding 1,000 raid increase while losing 1,100 personal might have just been the best they could do at the time to try to maintain balance, especially considering how the crit buff will scale exponentially to be more powerful over the course of the expansion.

Across roles it becomes more subjective, like I think casters should be able to output higher DPS than ranged physical if the right doesn't require a lot of movement, but that there should be encounters where ranged physical does more because they're more movement intensive. Also it becomes a point of contention like we've seen in the caster DPS community when it comes to questions like how much DPS is a raise worth? Doubly so in fights where that caster never had to use that raise, but still was penalized for having it in their pocket.

Short answer, they have to make jobs that increase the DPS of other party members weaker than those who don't bring those skills otherwise there would be no point to running the ones without. And if they made everyone have access to the same utility, people would complain about jobs all being the same.

[Akiudo]

snip

shortening your text not to be disrespectful but i think i would quote twice as much as i say myself otherwise and that feels kinda bad so well...

lets for a moment forget about utility buffs, natures minne and things like that obviously need some weighting to a class performance but thats not what i meant, i literally mean nothing but the dps buff

why do you think it is worse if the raid dps is 100 higher with bard than mch because of the raidbuff compared to the other way around ? thats the point i can't see, why would a theoretical bard without natures minne/wardens paen being 100 raid dps above mch make mch obsolete, yet a mch being 100 dps above bard doesn't do the same to bard ? the argument people generally make implies the pure damage buff itself should carry a penalty higher than the buff it offers, therefore the question. obviously one way or another its impossible to get the balance absolutely perfectly on point, but as we are talking design goals here i think the question is fair.


the crit buff in particular scaling exponentionally while true i still believe is a bad argument to overcompensate because that would mean you balance a class right now as being too weak because "in 3 patches when everyone has another 60 item levels it will sort itself out" can you balance like that ? sure, but should you really ? especially as thats not even necessarely happening as it says nothing about how the class itself scales

[Anienai]

You guys/gals are putting up awesome numbers.