So does every hate new PLD now?

[Lyth]

...

I'm not sure why you keep misreading my statements about rDPS parity despite me reiterating this for the nth time in a row. If two jobs have equal damage curves, then by definition, they have rDPS parity. The converse is not necessarily true. Yet you keep quoting it backwards. Are you doing this deliberately? If you actually need me to explain how if-then statements work then I can, no worries. But otherwise this is a needless discussion.

There's really no distinction between whether you run a group of buffers or non-buffers because - guess what - both types of jobs are balanced on the basis of rDPS, which already accounts for this. The instant you start messing with rDPS to skew for that invisible 20 rDPS gain from your tank's burst distribution, you create inequalities between the two sets of jobs. Now I have a tank job that does extra rDPS at baseline, and only breaks even with other tank jobs when we run a group of buff providers. So we just run non-buff providers and take the rDPS gain. This is why it's a bad strategy to privilege a job with an rDPS advantage, period. If you want to account for the difference due to burst, you just have to make their burst profiles identical.

If you want to analyze data from Crit/DH rate buffs, then you need to compile it as percentile-based data. Ideally, for any buff, you should be able to pick a buff and look at the damage taken under that buff by percentile for each fight (i.e. for PLD, let's say the 96th offers 175 dps under Arcane Circle, while DRK offers 190.) You can look at a few individual runs and try to get a ballpark sense of what the numbers are for flat damage buffs. But trying to do this with Crit/DH rate buffs is impossible. You could cherry pick a run where there's no Crits at all under the buff. You could cherry pick a run where they're all Crits. These buffs are actually the most difficult to quantify the benefit from specifically because they're so variable, and you can't actually tell if the increase in probability was specifically responsible for a given crit. That's why you need to look at the entire dataset to find the expected value.

And Everburn is a confounder, which is why I looked at Phase 1 in the first place.