Yoshi-P Sanpo comments re: Bard

[Cetonis]

now, it barely sits above Monk in satisfaction.

In that very same job satisfaction poll, low numbers were, by a wide margin, the most cited reason for people's dissatisfaction with Bard.

I agree that they need to do a lot of re-thinking in 6.0, but nothing more on that front is going to happen in a patch. They decided, after purportedly thinking about it a lot, that boring, zero interaction passive song buffs were the way to go. They're wrong, but the matter is addressed in their eyes, or at least as addressed as they're willing to make it in a patch.

This is not about completely, entirely, fixing Bard for good and forever. This about constructive changes that we know, or at least highly suspect, are patch-friendly - to fix performance and QoL issues with the job design as it stands, because whether we like it or not we've got another year-plus to go with it.

Completely reworking a removed skill is not patch friendly. Yes, they did Energy Drain, but they didn't have to change it at all. The song buffs still function the same as they used to, just with a modified effect. They clearly aren't going to bring back a Foe that functions roughly the same way as the old one, so there's no use arguing for it. I'd like it back too, but talking about it only serves to distract and derail at this point.

We know they can change numbers in patch, because obviously they do that all the time. We don't know if they can or can't add charges in a patch, since they're new and we've never seen it done before, and it's not like we know what the underlying code looks like. Anything else should be assumed to be off the table, and a surprise if it does happen at best.

[LolitaBansheeMeru]

I avoid bard because in ally,normal raids your basically screwed if there is another bard in the party, the songs overwrite and the entire point of bard is the songs and them all being party brds that can overwrite is a turn off

[SpeckledBurd]

Anyway, this is why I say simple potency Bandaid buffs are not enough and will not 'Fix Bard' in the eyes of those who have dropped the job. Bard was one of the most loved and played jobs in the game, and now, it barely sits above Monk in satisfaction. That doesn't come from simply being weak numbers wise, and I do hope the devs to take feedback like this and the numerous other ones given over the last year into account.

In that very same job satisfaction poll, low numbers were, by a wide margin, the most cited reason for people's dissatisfaction with Bard.

Yeah, it actually is by almost every indication a matter of numbers rather than a matter of job theming. In the poll in question ~60% of the respondents for bard listed meta position as one of the reasons for being unhappy with it, while only 5 people wrote in to cite job identity or lack of support. Even if you were extremely generous and attributed every time a respondent tagged "Changes to old Abilities" or "Problems with new abilities" as all being theming or support issues which is a really faulty conclusion to draw when that question is so open ended it could just as well be complaints that the changes to the kit made the job less desirable in the current meta, there's still significantly more people whose primary concern is Bard's meta position.

[Akiudo]

Numbers are and will allways be an issue, about the job satisfaction though i think its more complex. at this point the biggest problem people have with bard indeed is numbers, but i would say "place in the meta" is to simple a thought here, don't get me wrong but saying "people are bothered by place (or lack thereof) in the meta makes it seem like "we aren't the best, therefore we are unhappy". i don't think that was the point you were trying to make here speckledBurd, i truly don't, but especially for people that may not really be into classes other than their own it can sound like bards are just unhappy cause they aren't top dog so to speak.

Reality is, and thats why most bards cite numbers as reason to be unhappy that bard numbers right now aren't simply "bad".
physical ranged numbers are "bad" as they get overtly taxed for free mobility that in practice simply doesn't get utilized, but bard numbers are doubly bad as they are bad even for the standarts of the role thats bad to begin with.

Honestly dancer isn't even that much better off, high end speedrun setting aside, and i'm not to sure that should be taken into account too much for general balance, but at least there actually is a point where it pulls equal numbers to mch while offering better support, so the fact that it falls behind (in a "lacks way more damage than the support is worth" way) at least culmilates in being at the top of the bottom role at the highest level, while at lower levels being equal to bard in damage while offering better utility support.

Bard on the other hand simply falls behind completly, even at the bottom end damage is pretty much equal to dancer (while offering worse support) and at the top end they get left in the dust completly, meanwhile mch has a damage cushion of 500-700 dps on bard on all percentile levels. bard is about as "good" in the physical ranged role as redmage was to summoner before the last smn nerf/redmage buff, difference being that at least redmage is part of a generally desirable group (and still got buffed while smn got nerfed) ,whereas bard is allready competing in the special olympics and still failing miserably and gets ignored for months now in spite of that.



the other thing though, and thats what i think this thread was trying to address is that numbers aside their are still a lot of things that could simply be "better" , and instead of just upping potency fixing these things would actually be more usefull as they would tackle underlying gameplay issues while still having a positive effect on numbers.

at the end of the day if you just buff potency any issues with class design will still remain, if however you fix issues with class design that actively hinder a class to reach their full potential you can still raise damage output without changing potency, just that now the thing that may have felt clunky or just plain bad got fixed at the same time.

imagine a world where 60% of bards were unhappy because of their damage output, 10% of people were unhappy with bard because "sidewinder felt to weak", another 10% were unhappy because EA/BL at points really could use stacks. if you now just for example buff the potency of the dots back up you solved the worst damage problems, but nothing else. if however you buffed sidewinder and gave stacks to ea and bl you now raised dps and made the people that actively disliked sidewinder being to weak or EA/BL interactions happy at the same time.

[Morningstar1337]

If we're going the flavor route. Then I would have to suggest the following.

1. Have two different songs from two different BRD's work at once. That would add some flavor as it would imply that the BRD is capable of both working with others,and improvisation. I'd go as far as the break the tendency towards generic synergy/removing synergy and have a unique "Duet" buff for 2 BRDs and BRD+DNC that buffs their effects.
2. Furthermore I'd add back the Mana Regen aspect of Mage's Ballad, tweak Army's Paeon to have a different effect (CD reduction? Spell Speed buff?) and have Wanderer's grant Vuln Down to teammates...all on top of their current effects. Both an offensive and defensive effect on a song would sell BRD's support flavor well (though there might have to be a nerf to compensate for their versatility)
3. From there I'd change the song CD as well as that of Raging and Barrage to be three times the duration of a given song's effect (in which case 90 seconds), which would also line them up with raid buffs and ensure there are not arguments on which is the song to cut short.
4. From there I'd make Apex a oGCD skill that resets the song timer (while still needing the Soul Gauge) and grants them 3 repetoire stacks, while also changing BL and RoD to have 3 charges (maybe EA too). and then Give a variant of Wanderer's Paeon that either Regens or grants Re-raise

[KDSilver]

I'm no main bard, so I'll leave the number tweak and adjustment to people who know what they're talking about.

However, I used to play it a lot in HW and a bit in SB and what made me sad with SHB iteration it how it became a "worse Dancer" in the support department.

Bard lost MP/TP refresh, Foe, Palissade and Minne was nerfed (they even removed the songs buff, fortunately, people were vocals about that so it has been brought back)
It bothers me that Dancer introduction had to be done with Bard being less supportive.
The dispel while good is really situationnal/niche, Troubadour because the copy paste of samba and tactician.

I personnaly would love Bard to get back some support flavour abilities (that aren't necesseraly dps buff). But something that make bard being bard again and not just an archer that has to live in the "true support" shadow, aka dancer.

[Connor]

Not to veer the thread off in one direction or another but surely we can agree that ‘Bard’s job identity’ and ‘Bard’s current performance’ are both responsible less people playing it compared to before?

Not that I don’t get what the OP is saying; identity or ‘flavour’ issues aren’t exactly solveable mid-patch so it makes sense to focus only on what can be solved (such as dps numbers). But at the same time I do feel like it’s difficult to talk about one issue without the other inevitably creeping up.

It’s a bit like how you can’t really talk about healer adjustments without also talking about fight design, since the two are inextricably linked (e.g healer dps requirements). Adjusting the way healers work just through numbers doesn’t really address the issues people are having, since the root of the issue is that fights aren’t designed with lots of healing in mind anyway (and thus you can’t easily change how much healers heal without also changing how the fights themselves work).

I’ve hit a bit of a tangent but I just think that it’s difficult to treat ‘Bard’s current performance and desirability’ and ‘Bard’s thematic identity’ as entirely separate issues when they’re both feeding into each other. Bard feels weak and less valuable compared to its competitor dps, but then it’s identity in terms of ‘what exactly the job offers’ has been stretched thinner and thinner as each expansion has dropped. If the jobs identity felt more clear, there’s a chance that less people would feel that the job is weak or doesn’t contribute as much as others (though that’s just what I think, I’m not suggesting this would actually be the case).

Surely there must be some way in which addressing one aspect of the complaints can have a knock-on effect on the others. Naturally I’m not saying that Bard should get major adjustments mid-patch because of this because that isn’t feasible, but at the same time there must be some small things they can do that can reinforce the jobs ‘identity’ whilst also addressing the concerns that it isn’t as strong as other jobs offering similar things.

I worry that veering into the territory of ‘its one or the other’ will result in Bard receiving very one-sided adjustments. Like, they’d buff its dps heavily but remove its support abilities. It technically resolves the issue of ‘Bard being weak’, but then there’s still lots of players concerned with ‘Bards thematic identity’. Likewise, if they just added a bunch of music-looking abilities that didn’t actually affect what it contributes, then there’s still a lot of players that are concerned about Bard’s damage performance.

To clarify, I feel like it’s important to have a well-rounded discussion of feedback, and so I can understand why the ‘identity’ concerns inevitably pop up whilst discussing more concrete potency adjustments at the present time. Not that I’m saying ‘all Bards must be thinking about both’, just that I think it’s to be expected that performance and identity would become tangled up

[Cetonis]

If the jobs identity felt more clear, there’s a chance that less people would feel that the job is weak or doesn’t contribute as much as others (though that’s just what I think, I’m not suggesting this would actually be the case).

It almost certainly wouldn't be, people are deriving "job is weak" from the fflogs graphs that paint a pretty clear picture.

And it's not about being one or the other, it's just that they've already, in their minds, addressed the one. And the other is still a problem. The one is a problem too, but easy patch options to improve it are few and far between. All you can really do is make Battle Voice more frequent or more of an active decision point, which is among the ideas listed (C). Or, I guess, they could trim the CD on Minne down to 60s or something, though it is already quite powerful now compared to SB.

Of course I expected the identity stuff to come up when you broach the topic of Bard, I've seen more than enough threads get consumed by that already. Which is why I'm hoping to steer clear here, because it's a dead end.

SE has already done their brainstorming sessions and put all the "make Bard feel more support" ideas they could fathom on the table, and for whatever awful reasons, decided that re-adding the passive was the way to go. They've already said no to everything else. Re-litigating that isn't going to lead anywhere right now.

But bad job balance is bad job balance, and assuming SE wants to care about fixing it, it'd be nice if they could pick smarter band-aids instead of dumber ones.

[SpeckledBurd]

Numbers are and will allways be an issue, about the job satisfaction though i think its more complex. at this point the biggest problem people have with bard indeed is numbers, but i would say "place in the meta" is to simple a thought here, don't get me wrong but saying "people are bothered by place (or lack thereof) in the meta makes it seem like "we aren't the best, therefore we are unhappy". i don't think that was the point you were trying to make here speckledBurd, i truly don't, but especially for people that may not really be into classes other than their own it can sound like bards are just unhappy cause they aren't top dog so to speak.

-snip-

I wasn't really trying to make a point on my own, just put an actual number to Cetonis stating that low numbers were the most cited reason for Bard in that Job Satisfaction Survey. When the poll was released I was having another discussion which led to me checking the percentages of responses for all of the least satisfied jobs citing "Meta Position" as a complaint. For those curious, of the jobs that ended up being the least satisfied:

-Monk cited the Meta Position 20% of the time in a roll that is relatively well balanced, though Monk is relatively weak this tier due to fight design.
-Scholar, arguably the weakest healer with the lowest HPS and DPS, at every percentile cited it 23% of the time, and
-Astrologian, which is strongest Healer in both HPS and DPS, at all percentiles unsurprisingly only cited it 8.3% of the time.

From this we can assume of the jobs that are the most dissatisfied according to that poll at least, Bards were the most concerned with meta position/DPS as a point of contention.

My other comments on Bards citing "Changes to Old Abilities" and "Problems with new abilities" as problems was more to preempt people who would try and say that those were indicative of a lack of support or insufficient musical theming because they could be just as indicative of meta complaints or gameplay complaints due to how unspecific they are. I'm not going to dismiss those as being problems for some people, but in general it seems like they are in the minority compared to those who have concerns with Bard not being Meta for once.

[Akiudo]

I wasn't really trying to make a point on my own, just put an actual number to Cetonis stating that low numbers were the most cited reason for Bard in that Job Satisfaction Survey. When the poll was released I was having another discussion which led to me checking the percentages of responses for all of the least satisfied jobs citing "Meta Position" as a complaint. For those curious, of the jobs that ended up being the least satisfied:

-Monk cited the Meta Position 20% of the time in a roll that is relatively well balanced, though Monk is relatively weak this tier due to fight design.
-Scholar, arguably the weakest healer with the lowest HPS and DPS, at every percentile cited it 23% of the time, and
-Astrologian, which is strongest Healer in both HPS and DPS, at all percentiles unsurprisingly only cited it 8.3% of the time.

From this we can assume of the jobs that are the most dissatisfied according to that poll at least, Bards were the most concerned with meta position/DPS as a point of contention.

My other comments on Bards citing "Changes to Old Abilities" and "Problems with new abilities" as problems was more to preempt people who would try and say that those were indicative of a lack of support or insufficient musical theming because they could be just as indicative of meta complaints or gameplay complaints due to how unspecific they are. I'm not going to dismiss those as being problems for some people, but in general it seems like they are in the minority compared to those who have concerns with Bard not being Meta for once.

again though, there is a not just a gap but a gulf between "not being meta" and "being literal crap" monk, being "relatively weak" this tier is nothing on bard. Monk is generally competing for 2 slots, even if that isn't allways true with the advance of double caster its still generally the case, also mantra even at 10% is actually more usefull utility than anything bard has all while the classes monk is falling behind too are the actual top dps classes of the game, monk actually is pretty equal to the "weaker" melees.

Bard is not "relatively weak", bard is a broken down mess that at NO point is worth using over any of the other physical ranged, thats why "position in the meta" is way to easy a thought. i don't know what the original choices where, or how much of it was freeform, but looking at monk and saying its "relatively weak this tier" and than following up with basically "its still only the main complaint of 20% of people" is for one laughably understating just HOW useless bards current illiteration is compared to the alternatives, AND ignoring that this may aswell just indicate that monk is a bigger mechanical mess, which basically no one is denying.

Also yes, "changes to old abilitys, lack of support, Problems with old abilitys etc...." of course these also are complaints about position in meta, maybe not purely but there is overlap, that however is exactly why "position in meta" is so prelevant an answer, because its the all encompassing one. too paint an extreme, If bard had damage as low as it is but could rezz, throw out an additional 20% group shield, had a health regen song and could make the group actually move faster infight for lets say 10 seconds every minute. Now even with its sucky damage it would be usefull as a class, potentially even broken, so now people would comnplain about damage but not about position in the meta.

This however goes for literally every class. Bard literally doesn't excell in a single area, so as long as the potential answers given did not include "bard sadly sucks at all levels and in every aspect" "position in meta" is the one people will feel the strongest about and pick "very very bad" whereas "little utility, low personal damage, changes to skills......" all wil get a "meh" rating which than culmilates in "position in meta".