The Failure of the ranged Physical balancing

[Miminming]

while i agree ranged is underperforming, the 1% worth it so much that nobody gonna take double melee and caster ignoring ranger, its not only dps theres also LB and hp etc etc the 1% is bigger than you think.

[Kabooa]

while i agree ranged is underperforming, the 1% worth it so much that nobody gonna take double melee and caster ignoring ranger, its not only dps theres also LB and hp etc etc the 1% is bigger than you think.

It could stand to be bigger as an insurance tbh.

There's a post floating around one of these threads where I detail it further in a general context, but I can't be arsed to look for it now.

[SaitoHikari]

It could stand to be bigger as an insurance tbh.

There's a post floating around one of these threads where I detail it further in a general context, but I can't be arsed to look for it now.

This is the solution devs would most likely go with.

This is also a bad solution and even got shot down in the JP forums when the suggestion was floated around there months ago. Increasing role bonus by itself does nothing as it will be assumed all future content will be balanced around its existence, and pug parties would be screwed over in the long term if they cannot find the necessary roles.

[Kabooa]

This is the solution devs would most likely go with.

This is also a bad solution and even got shot down in the JP forums when the suggestion was floated around there months ago. Increasing role bonus by itself does nothing as it will be assumed all future content will be balanced around its existence, and pug parties would be screwed over in the long term if they cannot find the necessary roles.

I prefer to think of it more as a layer of protection. It should not be the only fix in the pipe, but it does protect against future design discrepancies.

If, in Garlemald-Goers, the melee all end up 15% below the mark because of whatever reason, a full house bonus of 8% vs 5% keeps at least one in the party.

Building in corrective measures is more useful to pugs than to statics, as pugs often require all the corrective advantages while a high end static does not.

[Akiudo]

while i agree ranged is underperforming, the 1% worth it so much that nobody gonna take double melee and caster ignoring ranger, its not only dps theres also LB and hp etc etc the 1% is bigger than you think.

without wanting to shoot down your optimism i believe that the 1% is indeed bigger than many people think, however on the other hand i also believe that even with that its still barely enough right now. if you look at pure dps you could allready easily replace all physical ranged and come out ahead dps wise, e6s notwithstanding, while there may still be some shift do to gear funnelling, even at the 50% ramuh percentile which is what should shift the least at this point you basically barely break even for taking a physical ranged instead of blm/smn+double melee.

like yes, you would be better of with taking a physical ranged, but lets all for a moment think what this 1% buff really is, the idea is that no matter what, you will want at least one of every role.
yet in the case of physical ranged the 1% buff allready has them at the point of "... well, with it we'll do the same amount of damage... and hey we'll have 1% more hp, also our parse will look nicer..." Basically the "strong and clear encouragement" it offers for other roles gets marginilized down to "oh well, at least our parse looks nicer" in the case of physical ranged, thats how bad it is