So does every hate new PLD now?

[Lyth]

?????

You have directly misquoted me in a way that is false. I have corrected you repeatedly. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide a direct citation or stop making that claim. Thank you.

nDPS and rDPS is identical on tanks. I'm not really sure where you're going with your 'aDPS is a slightly more useful nDPS' tangent. Also, you do realize that nDPS is composition independent, right? By definition you're excluding all external buffs provided by other players.

If you want to see the impact of burst on buffs, we can directly look at the damage taken under any given buff. Nobody has tabulated this data as percentiles yet, but the information exists. If you genuinely have an interest in evaluating this rather than trying to win internet arguments, then this is the quantity to be looking at and offering discussion around. We can directly look at the parameter of interest in this discussion. You don't need to offer a proxy.

[Shurrikhan]

If you want to see the impact of burst on buffs, we can directly look at the damage taken under any given buff. Nobody has tabulated this data as percentiles yet, but the information exists. If you genuinely have an interest in evaluating this rather than trying to win internet arguments, then this is the quantity to be looking at and offering discussion around. We can directly look at the parameter of interest in this discussion. You don't need to offer a proxy.

I'm aware. I'm the one who laid that out for you months ago.

But why would the burden of proof lie with the idea that jobs' throughput should be balanced around all that a job offers to an average party (or that the closest proxy for that metric should be the indicator for this shouldn't be the one specifically designed to ignore a significant portion of its contribution), as compared to the idea that looking at only part of what a job brings would somehow be preferable?

Regardless, that still wouldn't be worth anyone's time nearly so much (as mentioned last time) as using simple relative-potency spreadsheets, as those do not rely on matching all of the various contexts of a given fight, let alone the Crit/DHit variation.

Note: rDPS is no less a "proxy" for the performance of every buffer. Will you be holding every buffer, then, to the same skepticism that'd require careful tabulation by clear time, composition, and the percentiles of the receiver, buffer, and average across the party? Why is the one metric that accounts for team synergy safe despite being equally susceptible to variation, but the other not?