Dawntrail Healer Change Predicitons

[Supersnow845]

Hitting adds, by nature of a greater number of hits, are less prone to RNG-based differences between parses.

So, which is it? Are melee/ffloggers somehow the reason we were 'forced' to have less luck-based variation between runs by way of more guaranteed-crits, or are they the reason we can't have things that would have much more split and even damage, which would do the same?

Again, most melee would see increased advantage over other jobs from the inclusion of more sudden and high counts of adds. 'Pandering to melee' is not the reason we've seen fewer adds waves in raids.

Melee disliking adds phases is far older than the excessive RNG damage problems we have now, all the way back at T4 if you happened to be let into a party on DRG or MNK (hard when triple BRD was almost meta) you despised T4, A2 was similar as was seiryu (I honestly can’t remember if they counted damage in adds for tsyukoyomi)

I’ve never maimed melee so I can only guess at the reason (melee tend to have weak and unbalanced AOE’s compared to say DNC/BLM/SMN) but it’s an old phenomenon that melee don’t like adds phases

[Shurrikhan]

Melee disliking adds phases is far older than the excessive RNG damage problems we have now, all the way back at T4 if you happened to be let into a party on DRG or MNK (hard when triple BRD was almost meta) you despised T4, A2 was similar as was seiryu (I honestly can’t remember if they counted damage in adds for tsyukoyomi)

Did fine in each of those fights as MNK and DRG (and as NIN and SAM on Seiryu)...

MNK and DRG in T4 and A2S were a non-issue unless running high-SkS, from the simple fact that this game has always and continues to screw over the resource-efficiency of its Speed stats (and AoEs were very TP-intensive back then, especially DRG's).

I’ve never mained melee so I can only guess at the reason (melee tend to have weak and unbalanced AOE’s compared to say DNC/BLM/SMN) but it’s an old phenomenon that melee don’t like adds phases

No, historically melee had some of the strongest sustained AoE short of unintentional outliers like ARR BLM (Flare and F2 were nerfed thereafter) and HW SMN (Bane was nerfed thereafter). The limitations were simply TP, but Bard and MCH were even more thereby screwed, Holy trucked WHM's MP (despite it originally outpacing BLM over 6-7 GCDs, especially if said BLM had no Ether or Convert), and SCH's and SMN's AoE was limited to Bane, Miasma II, and an infrequent Trance.

Melee did not hate AoE fights. They did just fine in AoE fights. And with TP having been removed, they (and Rangers) lack their main historical weakness.

[Supersnow845]

Did fine in each of those fights as MNK and DRG (and as NIN and SAM on Seiryu)...

MNK and DRG in T4 and A2S were a non-issue unless running high-SkS, from the simple fact that this game has always and continues to screw over the resource-efficiency of its Speed stats (and AoEs were very TP-intensive back then, especially DRG's).



No, historically melee had some of the strongest sustained AoE short of unintentional outliers like ARR BLM (Flare and F2 were nerfed thereafter) and HW SMN (Bane was nerfed thereafter). The limitations were simply TP, but Bard and MCH were even more thereby screwed, Holy trucked WHM's MP (despite it originally outpacing BLM over 6-7 GCDs, especially if said BLM had no Ether or Convert), and SCH's and SMN's AoE was limited to Bane, Miasma II, and an infrequent Trance.

Melee did not hate AoE fights. They did just fine in AoE fights. And with TP having been removed, they (and Rangers) lack their main historical weakness.

I’ll admit you and I have very different memories of that time period but things were very fragmented back then and the fact you actually did the fights on melee means I’m fine to defer to your judgment on this, I’m just going on what I’ve always “known” from what people who ran melees back then told me (and of course TP) but if you say it’s not so I’m fine to take that

I’m not immune to change

[Shurrikhan]

I’ll admit you and I have very different memories of that time period but things were very fragmented back then and the fact you actually did the fights on melee means I’m fine to defer to your judgment on this, I’m just going on what I’ve always “known” from what people who ran melees back then told me (and of course TP) but if you say it’s not so I’m fine to take that

I’m not immune to change

Fair enough.

I just get annoyed when we've got Problem A, and there's an obvious Cause B, and yet people will focus on Tangential, Unlikely, and Insufficient Reason C.

We have fewer add phases in raids now.

Given what other changes we've seen across the game, this seems in keeping with the devs' vibe of "Why bother? It might make something at least infinitesimally harder to balance if we included it. Just simplify."

That it could possibly have anything to do with Melee is contrary to their historical net performance, what reasons were behind their individual weaknesses, isn't sufficient in itself to explain changing the whole course of raids... so why are we distracting from the far more likely causes, let alone the issue itself, with some weird twist on (gear-)class warfare?

Fixating on that possibility so removed from the problem itself just doesn't make any sense to me, especially when the decrease in add phases predate Endwalker, add phases are generally to melees' advantage, tighter hitboxes just Melees' space is actually reserved for them (inadvertently reducing their chance of being PKed), and all but being forced (by the mechanic, not by party idiocy) to stack outside of melee range is generally fine to melee, etc., etc.

/shrug
/endrant