Some views on DPS balance that everyone cares about

[Nemekh]

Also, fun fact that I will now share since the thread is abruptly on topic again.

Are y'all aware that at high spellspeed values, the blm thunder dot is being under-valued on a certain site? This means they're not being credited as much dps from thunder on logs as they're actually doing ingame, blm numbers should be even higher than they are now.

As you know, speed stats now directly buff dot damage. Apparently this has something to do with a certain program not correctly accounting for the amount of spellspeed you have, when trying to figure out how much of the dot damage taken by a target belongs to you. Just so you know, parsing is not an exact science, and things like this are still being worked out.

I really, really wish more would realise that the observed metrics there are not gospel and that there are a whole slew of problems especially when DoTs are involved.

Imagine for all of Stormblood except for the very end of 4.5 that MNK's Fist of Fire was not being accounted for in their Demolish resulting in MNK, for the entire expansion, being under attributed and thus being shown to be doing less DPS than they truthfully were.

It took a lot of effort from people like myself to try and bring about accuracy to these metrics where DoTs are concerned - especially with regards to Summoner because I know how people cling to figures as if they are a truth when at best they are a best case approximation to what we experience as we play. Back when SMN was locked out of parties in 4.0 it wasn't even accounting for DH on DoTs which was severely impacting SMN, then BRD in recorded damage, and because people saw SMN at the bottom of the pack they started excluding them all over.

This is why it helps to know the lay of the land.

[Lastelli]

I Don't see why you want to defend that clear obvious Motte and Bailey Position, I've Argued that It wasn't that Simple Multiple-times though out this entire Thread, It's Narrow-minded to consider my Sarcastic point i made as factual when my follow up was that it wasn't that simple and is another clear display of ad populum.

He doesn't have a point, Comparing Social-Positioning like this game is some kind of Perfect Meritocracy is a complete lie.

Going around and Policing parse runs to push social hierarchies on other users in a community is Tyranny by Definition. This is the exact reason that the Developers grey zoning this, if your community keeps up this behavior and enforces these Fastidious Tyrannical Social hierarchies It'll lead to hard-banning of those kinds of tools all together.

Dude, stop embarassing yourself.
The problem here is not your historical performance, it's that what you're saying is factually wrong and shows that you simply lack experience. I and many others have already explained why. We gave you detailed explanations as to why EF is close to useless and shouldn't be taken into account when balancing or why APM means nothing. Playing the victim card is a little embarassing to see. And yes, sorry to tell you but not all opinions hold the same weight in this world, despite what some sjw say. Competence and experience always matter, both for serious matters like science and for less serious things like a game's balance theorycrafting.

[Nemekh]

Looking at Historical Records you didn't even start Raiding until Creator Tier in Heavenward, There is no Historical records judging people off Parses and logs is exactly the toxic kind of nonsense that this community doesn't need, You can't prove someone is a good player by just looking at the logs considering the current system doesn't have ARR End-game, Just because someone has parse logs in a game doesn't mean that suddenly makes them higher up in some kinda Hierarchy that doesn't exist you people are clearly just power hungry and need to grow up.

I think you'll find, Renkei, that with the work I'm involved with especially in co-founding XivAnalysis, that I would never just look at things at a surface level, nor would I ever play the card of implying that having higher or lower percentiles makes someone better or worse than others. In fact, I have spent every day for over 3 years, in some regards at my own financial cost, helping people regardless of their past experience to improve their play. If you think that's all to gorge on power then I'm not sure what to tell you. It just comes across as having an irrational bias against anyone affiliated with The Balance, just as you had shown earlier in response to one of Jack's posts.

What I observed with your historic information was the fact that you do lack the current experience at the higher end be it this expansion and some time prior. You may eventually clear savage, you may take it at a slower pace and that's fine. But don't think that is equivalent to being intimate with all the savages early on and the ultimates as the patches roll on by. Especially when it comes to the impacts of certain facets in said content requiring direct experience to be familiar with. Reading log data alone is not the same as practical experience.

Also, nice try attempting to riposte with the Heavensward reference but I'm afraid it's a swing and a miss. I have no shame in admitting I was playing XIV much more casually since ARR. Took a significant event to make me want to delve deeper into the game. Things happen for a reason both good and bad. But that's all the past. Try better with more recent times. The game isn't the same as it was since ARR.

[Lastelli]

I really, really wish more would realise that the observed metrics there are not gospel and that there are a whole slew of problems especially when DoTs are involved.

So, Nemekh, I was hoping someone good with maths could help me with a doubt I have...

I recently took a look at fflogs maths for rDPS estimates and I got the impression that crit and direct hit buffs are consistently underestimated because the synergistic effects of buff stacking is entirely attributed to flat damage buffs. Am I missing something?

[Nemekh]

So, Nemekh, I was hoping someone good with maths could help me with a doubt I have...

I recently took a look at fflogs maths for rDPS estimates and I got the impression that crit and direct hit buffs are consistently underestimated because the synergistic effects of buff stacking is entirely attributed to flat damage buffs. Am I missing something?

It's possible and has been a thought some have had with how the current rDPS system on fflogs is causing a widespread undervaluing of synergy comps. I had a long discussion about it with Zeppe (of many world firsts fame, big fan) the other day because he was asking for my insight into what I believed was the best comp for world/blind prog and week1 clears.

The problem with fflogs is ensuring the model is correct enough to give as fair a representation of things as possible. Something I've worked on with more pressing sources of attribution (notably DoTs as mentioned, DH and all sorts), but it's still one of those things where we have to ask ourselves "is rDPS being calculated as sensibly as it could be?". I don't fully know, something still feels off to me, it's gotten a lot better for sure, but it's not quite there which can lead to incorrect conclusions of matters when we're talking about differences of a few hundred potentially reshuffling the whole list (because honestly, things are much closer than they have ever been for most jobs).

I've initiated another project that should help address being able to solve that query and more.

[Lastelli]

It's possible and has been a thought some have had with how the current rDPS system on fflogs is causing a widespread undervaluing of synergy comps. I had a long discussion about it with Zeppe (of many world firsts fame, big fan) the other day because he was asking for my insight into what I believed was the best comp for world/blind prog and week1 clears.

The problem with fflogs is ensuring the model is correct enough to give as fair a representation of things as possible. Something I've worked on with more pressing sources of attribution (notably DoTs as mentioned, DH and all sorts), but it's still one of those things where we have to ask ourselves "is rDPS being calculated as sensibly as it could be?". I don't fully know, something still feels off to me, it's gotten a lot better for sure, but it's not quite there which can lead to incorrect conclusions of matters when we're talking about differences of a few hundred potentially reshuffling the whole list (because honestly, things are much closer than they have ever been for most jobs).

I've initiated another project that should help address being able to solve that query and more.

Thanks for your reply...tbh I'm starting to think rDPS was a mistake...too many people look at that metric and assume it tells the whole story and start arguing over a 200 dps difference that could be entirely explained by the approximations of those formulae.
From a theoretical perspetive, though, I'm struggling to find a reason as to why flat dmg buffs would be underestimated...I just think that buffs like trick are just stealing some of the value of buffs like battle voice/litany.

I think a good idea to make the numbers more accurate would be to keep the current system while introducing a third step after crit/dh buffs are estimated. Include an adjustment factor dependent on the crit/dh buffs during a buff window and on crit/dh events (lower and close to 1), take some rDPS away from flat damage buffs by multiplying it for the factor and then redistribute it to crit/dh buffs depending on their relative weight. It would probably be the easier way since you could work while keeping the contraint that total buffs value must be equal before and after the introduction of this factor...finding the right function to link crit/dh buffs to the adj factor is the problem though.

But anyway, looking forward to see what you guys come up with, hopefully you can get in touch with Kihra and find a solution.

[Vendalwind]

Yeah not even gonna defend it cause i was making a very loose comparison. You took this way too far Renkei, and have even tried to bend what limited things i said to the extreme when the comparison was a very simple pattern. You are a little to wrapped up in your need to be right on this one.

Nevermind.
I read what you said. I am going to have to pick apart a few things because your mental gymnastics are actually a little unreal.

First:
Meritocricy has its...... for kicks: merits. Ignoring that principle is reaching. ground yourself.

Second. you ran with my analogy as if i examined critically EVERY SINGLE OUT BOARD EVENT, POSSIBILITY, EXTREMITY, OCCURRENCE to completion. As if I should account for the 8,767,128 to 1 chance that my statement became a beluga whale and a bowl of petunias. (please catch the reference)

Every system of mental cognition has its flaws. Every system of society does too. Yet one does not assume the worst case scenario as their reason for denouncing a construct. If this were true one must denounce the whole world. Your reaching here is existential over examination that makes logic invalid in the realm of over-critiquing logic itself.

And the worst and most laughable part. After all your dissection what do you provide to support your argument?: An anecdote. Really??? an anecdote, yours in fact (biased position anyone?) concerning your worldview.

I tip my hat to you.

(and please for the sake of the logic community and places where actual debates are held stop misusing fallacy terms. stick with one and roll with it instead of shotgun spouting them with your own version of a "A Fallacy of Diversion."... The world will be a better place for it. I mean you had something with motte & bailey alone. but then you shot yourself in the foot by overgunning for it. Also note, Pointing out fallacies is actually often weaker than the core of the fallacy itself. Motte and Bailey is one such fallacy. Your noticing my argument as a fallacy is still not as durable a comparison as the "stronger" more reality grounded comparison i set up.)

[ReiMakoto]

It's possible and has been a thought some have had with how the current rDPS system on fflogs is causing a widespread undervaluing of synergy comps. I had a long discussion about it with Zeppe (of many world firsts fame, big fan) the other day because he was asking for my insight into what I believed was the best comp for world/blind prog and week1 clears.

The problem with fflogs is ensuring the model is correct enough to give as fair a representation of things as possible. Something I've worked on with more pressing sources of attribution (notably DoTs as mentioned, DH and all sorts), but it's still one of those things where we have to ask ourselves "is rDPS being calculated as sensibly as it could be?". I don't fully know, something still feels off to me, it's gotten a lot better for sure, but it's not quite there which can lead to incorrect conclusions of matters when we're talking about differences of a few hundred potentially reshuffling the whole list (because honestly, things are much closer than they have ever been for most jobs).

I've initiated another project that should help address being able to solve that query and more.

They should add a visual indicator somewhere as to how much damage was gained by stacking the buff rather than the buff itself, maybe in the rdps breakdown of what damage went there you have a seperate metric like:
Trick Attack: x DPS
Trick Attack + Embolden: x DPS

or

Trick Attack: xdps (+ xdps from buff stacking)

[Vendalwind]

Thanks for your reply...tbh I'm starting to think rDPS was a mistake...too many people look at that metric and assume it tells the whole story...

It' super true tho. Where does one draw the proportion lines with RDPS? do all the gains belong to the buffer? if not what percentage split since the buffer could not get the gains without the hard hitter. And does the hard hitter get any value from the buffer? it better, cause else how do you measure the skill of a player that can hold and utilize buff windows well? And where does square enix see the ownership of the rDPS? I actually have no idea where the theoretically most healthy split/distribution of who owns what damage is.

[Vendalwind]

I really, really wish more would realise that the observed metrics there are not gospel and that there are a whole slew of problems especially when DoTs are involved.

Imagine for all of Stormblood except for the very end of 4.5 that MNK's Fist of Fire was not being accounted for in their Demolish resulting in MNK, for the entire expansion, being under attributed and thus being shown to be doing less DPS than they truthfully were.

It took a lot of effort from people like myself to try and bring about accuracy to these metrics where DoTs are concerned - especially with regards to Summoner because I know how people cling to figures as if they are a truth when at best they are a best case approximation to what we experience as we play. Back when SMN was locked out of parties in 4.0 it wasn't even accounting for DH on DoTs which was severely impacting SMN, then BRD in recorded damage, and because people saw SMN at the bottom of the pack they started excluding them all over.

This is why it helps to know the lay of the land.

Which way does it lean right now? for example if I as a nin have higher SkS than the standard balance NINS is my shadowfang dot being undervalued on fflogs? or overvalued?