You completely miss the point, and actually reinforce exactly what I'm saying.
The idea is this, lets say ranged is last for 3/4 fights in a tier. You would then expect one fight in the tier, a super movement fight, where ranged are #1. That would make sense, in that every role and class has strengths and weaknesses, and there should be content that plays to a given role's strengths. And let me reiterate, I'm not saying like, on this fight ranged is 2000 dps above the others. No, I just mean a fight where they are competitive for first. Lets say a fight where MCH beats out BLM by 500 dps.
But instead now, ranged is always last, no matter whether its a stand still fight or a heavy movement fight. This isn't right.
Imagine you had the choice between two cars, one that's better on roads and one better offroad. But every race you do is 99% on a road and 1% offroad, and the offroad car always loses. Why would you ever pick the offroad car?
This is the scenario we are in now. And the answer is "because 1% role bonus exists". That isn't a merit of ranged, that is just, well, I guess we have to have -one- ranged. Given the choice, a raid leader putting together a top tier speedrun group would never have more than one ranged.
And lets just all remember, that this is what the discussion on balance is about. Everyone knows every class is viable for all content. We've established that. What we're discussing now is balance, and how they arrive on such balance. My point is their philosophy for balancing (or at least, what this forum assumes is the philosophy) is flawed.
To put it in the analogy again, what I'm saying is, lets make races 50% on road and 50% off road. Or 70% on road and 30% off road. Or something so that you can say, yea, this is why we want to bring more ranged, because this fight they do the best.
tl;dr: there is no point for ranged to have a movement advantage if despite the advantage, they are still always last. It's not an advantage unless there is content in which they excel at.


Reply With Quote

