Post your Grand Company Weapons!

[Lux_Rayna]

You clearly missed the part where I said the GC lance has no niche because it's harder to obtain than other superior weapons (and I'm not referring to Ifrit's Harpoon here).

; ; "harder to obtain" is a very very very subjective point of view. All it requires is a certain amount of seals. I know quite a few seal whores in my ls, I wouldn't call it difficult. Of course its hard for someone like me who hates farming totorak for seals, and is too lazy to stockpile items for provision missions. But to each his own.

Also I do not understand what you mean by "niche". A weapon has a niche if someone is willing to use it, and if it is a viable weapon for current content. As this weapon was released in conjunction with current content, is a high level weapon, and has a great raw dps output, we can reasonably conclude that it is a "viable" weapon for current content. As such, it has this mysterious "niche" you're referring to, which means you have no basis for calling it trash. And quite frankly, you're reasoning is a bit silly since "difficulty" has nothing at all to do with a weapon's viability. If I want to use a weapon thats harder to obtain than a superior weapon, so be it. Does it matter? No. The weapon has a niche because I like it and I want to use it, and it is comparable to other higher class weapons. That being the case, your justification for trashing it is still erroneous. Just say you dont like the weapon because it doesn't suit the level of play you'd like to play at.

Calling it trash, or useless, or without a niche, is just brainless. You are quite a lot smarter than that I imagine, so I don't see the need for you to lower your intellectual output in a pointless attack of a weapon choice made by an individual you won't even be playing with. Even if you had to play with him, I'm sure you would find it is good enough to do whatever needs be done in current content even if it is not the best. Long story short, there's no viable reason for this madness, so I encourage you to just let it be. Quite frankly, excellent skill rotation trumps any difference in gear choice at the end of the day. I"d bet an arm and a leg that a great player with a GC lance can easily outparse an avg player with an Ifrits Harpoon, just because his skill rotation would be that much better, thus that much more effective, thus that much more damage regardless of the statistical difference in weaponry. Would he be *that* much more awesome if he chose an Ifrits harpoon. Sure. But we aren't talking about min/maxing here, we are talking about viability.

[Frein]

; ; "harder to obtain" is a very very very subjective point of view. All it requires is a certain amount of seals. I know quite a few seal whores in my ls, I wouldn't call it difficult. Of course its hard for someone like me who hates farming totorak for seals, and is too lazy to stockpile items for provision missions. But to each his own.

Correct, which is why I actually said "could be considered easier to obtain". Even with DRG needing a lot of ACC because of the lolmiss nature of Impulse Drive, I'd probably pick Gerbald's Redspike over this one, and it's quite cheap. I'm going to assume that most people will find coming up with gil for that one much easier than farming 10k seals for the last GC rank and the weapon.

Also I do not understand what you mean by "niche". A weapon has a niche if someone is willing to use it, and if it is a viable weapon for current content.

This really shouldn't be so confusing. A weapon has a niche if it is the best in a relevant category, such as the best weapon that is easy to obtain, the best weapon against high evasion enemies or the best weapon in the game. There does not appear to be any reason to why anyone would get the GC lance other than looks or ignorance, because by the time it becomes available to most people, you should have been able to get something better. You could argue that its niche is to look nice for those who like the way it looks, but that is irrelevant to game mechanics.

[Starlord]

Correct, which is why I actually said "could be considered easier to obtain". Even with DRG needing a lot of ACC because of the lolmiss nature of Impulse Drive, I'd probably pick Gerbald's Redspike over this one, and it's quite cheap. I'm going to assume that most people will find coming up with gil for that one much easier than farming 10k seals for the last GC rank and the weapon.


This really shouldn't be so confusing. A weapon has a niche if it is the best in a relevant category, such as the best weapon that is easy to obtain, the best weapon against high evasion enemies or the best weapon in the game. There does not appear to be any reason to why anyone would get the GC lance other than looks or ignorance, because by the time it becomes available to most people, you should have been able to get something better. You could argue that its niche is to look nice for those who like the way it looks, but that is irrelevant to game mechanics.

Like I said for the longest time.. " Different strokes for different folks"

[Lux_Rayna]

This really shouldn't be so confusing. A weapon has a niche if it is the best in a relevant category, such as the best weapon that is easy to obtain, the best weapon against high evasion enemies or the best weapon in the game. There does not appear to be any reason to why anyone would get the GC lance other than looks or ignorance, because by the time it becomes available to most people, you should have been able to get something better. You could argue that its niche is to look nice for those who like the way it looks, but that is irrelevant to game mechanics.

Your brain is being severely limited by your intense belief in min/maxing. You have to understand that min/max isn't law, and min/max doesn't define games. In fact, games aren't even designed nor balanced around min/maxing, which is precisely why your niche argument falls to pieces. In the world of min/maxers, yes, everything has a niche..and anything else is trash and useless. But as a game is not defined nor balanced around min/max values, that niche does not actually exist as far as content design is concerned. More or less you are creating niches, which you are perfectly allowed to do; you just need to remember that the niches you are creating only exist for yourself, and whosoever happens to agree with your perception. What you are talking about isn't law but opinion based on your personal min/max belief system. Feel free to carry it with you, but recognize it as it is...a belief and an opinion. It takes a lot of work to give validity to beliefs outside of your belief system, but I know you are capable. The fact of the matter is, these niches you speak of do not actually exist in game, only in your head. A community that shares your view may *manifest* these niches, and in some cases make them social norm, but they are in no way game law. I think you can understand this well enough.

EDIT: By severely limited I mean making you close-minded. It was not meant to be an insult towards your intelligence. Thought it'd clarify my poor wording there.

Since niches are, in fact, completely made up outside of the level of content they were designed for...anyone can use any weapon they choose so long as it is designed for the content which they will be facing. It is safe to say that due to the weapon's level, and raw stats, it was designed for current content. Thats about as far as this "niche" thing goes in FFXIV. SE gives you a bunch of weapons released with content, you choose which to use for what. He chooses to use his GC lance, and he is making a good choice because that lance was designed for current content. Again, it doesnt need to be the best in any one category to be relevant or useful. The point is that it is viable, and it definitely is. No party will fail current content because they were using all GC weapons...with the exception of maybe Garuda. And that is an honest maybe, since Garuda is actually a gear check in a lot of ways, and requires not just viable gear, but superior gear. Still, I could very well be possible to succeed even with all GC weapons. Other than that one possible exception, I fail to see the problem with his gear choice...other than the fact that it doesn't fit into your min/max belief system. Different strokes for different folks, let him be.

[Frein]

Your brain is being severely limited by your intense belief in min/maxing. You have to understand that min/max isn't law, and min/max doesn't define games. In fact, games aren't even designed nor balanced around min/maxing, which is precisely why your niche argument falls to pieces.

Of course min/max defines games. Fighting games and competitive RTS games are designed to be balanced at top levels of competition, not in the noob league. The same principle is used in MMO design when making the hardest end game content: The devs have to consider all the options the players have available, and assume they're going to abuse those options to the fullest, to guarantee a challenging encounter.

This is why alchemy was eventually toned down in WoW. With liberal use of potions you could push the overall power level of the raid group very high, which forced the devs to design encounters with juiced up groups in mind. This then lead to people unwilling or unable to mass produce potions to face nearly insurmountable challenges and, if not forced, encouraged everyone to spend a lot of time on farming alchemy materials.

More or less you are creating niches, which you are perfectly allowed to do; you just need to remember that the niches you are creating only exist for yourself, and whosoever happens to agree with your perception.

My niches exist within the game's mechanics, not just in my head. It is not my subjective opinion that 100k gil is less than 200k gil and that a weapon that outparses another weapon in situation X actually does so.

Since niches are, in fact, completely made up outside of the level of content they were designed for...anyone can use any weapon they choose so long as it is designed for the content which they will be facing. It is safe to say that due to the weapon's level, and raw stats, it was designed for current content. Thats about as far as this "niche" thing goes in FFXIV. SE gives you a bunch of weapons released with content, you choose which to use for what. He chooses to use his GC lance, and he is making a good choice because that lance was designed for current content. Again, it doesnt need to be the best in any one category to be relevant or useful. The point is that it is viable, and it definitely is. No party will fail current content because they were using all GC weapons...with the exception of maybe Garuda. And that is an honest maybe, since Garuda is actually a gear check in a lot of ways, and requires not just viable gear, but superior gear. Still, I could very well be possible to succeed even with all GC weapons. Other than that one possible exception, I fail to see the problem with his gear choice...other than the fact that it doesn't fit into your min/max belief system. Different strokes for different folks, let him be.

Unless you define success as something else than beating game content as flawlessly as possible (RP perhaps?), this is a mentality of mediocrity and failure. My belief is that you should do everything to the best of your ability and not voluntarily handicap yourself. It is my advice, not my decree, to follow this belief. Everyone is free to play the way they want and the purpose of my posts is not to demand but to inform. However, as much as everyone have the right to play the way they want, I too, have the right to choose the people I agree to play with and I consider things like this when I make that evaluation.

[Lux_Rayna]

Of course min/max defines games. Fighting games and competitive RTS games are designed to be balanced at top levels of competition, not in the noob league. The same principle is used in MMO design when making the hardest end game content: The devs have to consider all the options the players have available, and assume they're going to abuse those options to the fullest, to guarantee a challenging encounter.

This is not entirely true at all. Devs do have to consider all of these things, yes, but the content will not be balanced around the assumption that all players will be min/maxing. You have to take maximum into account in order to deliver challenging content, but you also have to balance this content around the averages and the minimums. In other words, games are balanced around what players can obtain and what players are likely to have. There is no content that can withstand a party full of quint melded blms. None. This more or less proves my point. Devs consider its existence, but also recognize that no party will likely be 100% efficient. Thus you scale the battle to aim at a particular level of play, and anything beyond that wont' see much of a challenge at all. If you remember the gear swapping in FFXI, it was easymode until the devs balanced content around min/maxing. Games generally aren't designed around min/maxing, as min/maxing usually makes things easy.

My niches exist within the game's mechanics, not just in my head. It is not my subjective opinion that 100k gil is less than 200k gil and that a weapon that outparses one weapon in situation X actually does so.

You convinced yourself they exist within game mechanics but they exist entirely in your head. Niches are made up; something has to be given a niche in order to have one, and SE never gave niches to any weapon they have ever released. They release different weapons, with different stats, and it is the player that will look at the weapon and give it a niche. Yes your niches are based off game mechanics, but they are still made up. You and I can look at the same weapon and give it different niches, because we perceive its utility differently. Take a weapon with high acc and high crit attack. You might look at it and see critgoon, i may look at it and see high acc for high eva mobs. My equips would focus on acc, your equips would focus on crit rate/power, and the same weapon would have two different niches according to two different people.

Its is not your subjective opinion that one weapon outparses another in a certain situation, but it is your subjective opinion that that weapon's niche is the situation you parsed it in. There is room in a niche for more than one thing. In nature many animals fulfill the same niche, some not as well as others. Regardless, there is a place for them there, as likely they are able to fulfill other roles while exist within that niche. Again, let us return to the high acc and high crit attack power weapon. It can exist in many different setups, used well in many different situations, purely because it can fulfill multiple roles at the same time. There might be another higher acc weapon that would be more beneficial, but maybe I decided to take the lower acc for a good bonus to my crit attack..or my attack..or whatever else it has. It still fills that acc niche, but also gives me something more.

This is a mentality of mediocrity and failure. My belief is that you should do everything to the best of your ability and not voluntarily handicap yourself. It is my advice, not my decree, to follow this belief. Everyone is free to play the way they want and the purpose of my posts is not to demand but to inform. However, as much as everyone have the right to play the way they want, I too, have the right to choose the people I agree to play with and I consider things like this when I make that evaluation.

Thats ironic in a way. When you're min/maxing, you are only doing one thing to the best of your ability and doing nothing about anything else. You are essentially handicapping yourself by limiting your mind to a tiny box and not learning how various combinations and varieties can be used in different situations. You become ignorant of a lot of things in this pursuit, but if that pursuit alone makes you happy then follow it all the same. Min/Maxing is only a small part of gameplay. There is a lot to learn by taking an "all-rounded approach," or a different approach for the sake of simply exploring options and learning more about how to play. You lose out on the discovery of potentially lethal combinations because you pigeonhole your focus to one thing. You may say I am aiming for mediocrity, but I could just as easily say the same of your approach. To ignore 95% of the game's equipment, builds, playstyles, etc., is severely hampering your progress as a player. To follow one road is to ignore all the rest, so while you would be quite knowledgeable about that one road, you'd be entirely clueless about the roads around you. Thus when an opportunity comes along, you'd be unable to perceive it. You would not know what you were looking at because your belief system blinded you to the existence of anything else.

Its like with Garuda weapons. When I saw Garuda weapons I saw opportunity. When other saw them, they saw garbage. Imagine the irony if/when parse results show that they were indeed superior, and that a number of awesome builds were possible with them. If you spent all your time obsessing over pebbles, you wouldnt know a gem when you saw one. You'd just declare it wasnt a pebble, making it garbage, and chuck it in the river. A few centuries later someone finds it and sees value, jewelry, accessories...the list goes on. IMO its better to broaden your mind than to lock it onto any one thing. Specializing never hurts, but always leave room for flexibility and openness.

[Frein]

If you remember the gear swapping in FFXI, it was easymode until the devs balanced content around min/maxing.

I believe you just proved my point here.

You and I can look at the same weapon and give it different niches....[cut to save space]

Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that character builds are like the unexplored final frontier where all kinds of wonders await. That if you skew your stats towards something unconventional, something completely unexpected will happen and only by testing every single combination will you know how those combinations perform. This is simply not the case. We have a very good idea of how most stats work, which allows us to make educated conclusions about various character builds without having to actually test every one of them. The potential for powerful enough synergies simply do not appear to exist.

In the MRD/WAR forum there was speculation about the potential of a massively self-healing Rampage/Crit build but turns out your crit rate is very difficult to significantly modify with gear, so the thought experiment didn't lead to anything. Similarly in the THM/BLM forum a crit power build was proposed but after a parse was ultimately abandoned as inferior to a traditional INT/MATK/MACC build.

Let's take the much debated Garuda weapons as an example. They allow you to AA with a very low delay. Then what? How do you propose we take advantage of that? You seem confident that there is potential for something miraculous, yet you cannot explain why the fast AA would matter. For instance, you could make the argument that assuming the wind/fire damage proc rates and power are equal on Garuda/Ifrit weapons, the Garuda weapon will proc more wind damage over a given period of time. This, however, is clearly not enough to bridge the gap assuming what we "know" about WS damage calculation is true.

[Lux_Rayna]

I believe you just proved my point here.

I actually proved mine. If content was balanced around min/maxing FFXI would have never been easymode ever. It would have always been very difficult, but it was not. Devs recognized that everyone was min/maxing, and so changed the content to reflect that. By and large, and in general, games do not do this. FFXI was an exception, due to its peculiar mechanics and circumstances.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that character builds are like the unexplored final frontier where all kinds of wonders await. That if you skew your stats towards something unconventional, something completely unexpected will happen and only by testing every single combination will you know how those combinations perform. This is simply not the case. We have a very good idea of how most stats work, which allows us to make educated conclusions about various character builds without having to actually test every one of them. The potential for powerful enough synergies simply do not appear to exist.

Any tester worth their salt will tell you that an isolated test can only tell you whatever it was testing. If I test crit damage and find it difficult to raise, and then I test crit rate and find the same thing...that does not tell me that crit rate+crit damage is inefficient. What you are doing are making base assumptions based on isolated data. These assumptions are not necessarily correct until they are tested. Sometimes a combination makes something that is greater than the sum of its parts. This exists in nature as a constant reminder. 2 Hydrogen and one oxygen make the incredible substance of water. Neither by themselves is anything particularly useful to us outside of their limited use. But water is infinitely useful for a variety of things, and is far greater than anyone would have supposed looking at hydrogen and oxygen in isolation.

In the MRD/WAR forum there was speculation about the potential of a massively self-healing Rampage/Crit build but turns out your crit rate is very difficult to significantly modify with gear, so the thought experiment didn't lead to anything. Similarly in the THM/BLM forum a crit power build was proposed but after a parse was ultimately abandoned as inferior to a traditional INT/MATK/MACC build.

This more or less proves the point. You have to parse the builds in question in order to pass an accurate judgement. Leaving anything as a thought experiment without putting it into practice is just folly. Thats not science, it is assumption. There is no harm in testing any build before assessing its validity. Failure to do so is just laziness. There are a lot of builds in XI that never would have seen the light of day had someone not said "fuck you" to the community and tried it anyway. Both War/Nin and Nin/War come to mind. I'm sure there are more though. Once Garuda weapons and GC weapons are fully parsed, you might be surprised at the results. Every patch means the game has changed, thus everything that was tested needs be retested as new equipment becomes available. After all, the devs are not required to tell you anything regarding dmg formulas. They could change them tmrw and you wouldnt have a clue because you're too busy assuming instead of testing.

Let's take the much debated Garuda weapons as an example. They allow you to AA with a very low delay. Then what? How do you propose we take advantage of that? You seem confident that there is potential for something miraculous, yet you cannot explain why the fast AA would matter. For instance, you could make the argument that assuming the wind/fire damage proc rates and power are equal on Garuda/Ifrit weapons, the Garuda weapon will proc more wind damage over a given period of time. This, however, is clearly not enough to bridge the gap assuming what we "know" about WS damage calculation is true.

Methinks it is infinitely wiser to test the actual weapon instead of assuming an old and outdated parse still holds water in a constantly changing game. This is no offense meant to the tester, but they will freely admit they do not know all the nuances of dmg calculation, and can only hypothesize. That being the case, assuming anything about new weapons and new releases is foolish, as SE could change a number of things to make those new releases viable for the content they were released with. Parse the GC weapons, parse the Garuda weapons, and you might be *shocked* that your assumptions are...in fact...false. You can only know this if you throw away the old belief in your head and approach every new release with an open mind. There's already one parse you have seen comparing GC lance to Ifrits Harpoon. And you have seen, like I have, that some of the assumptions regarding WS dmg and stat caps appear false. Numbers dont lie after all, and the numbers speak for themselves. Though it is a preliminary test of a rather small sample size, it does prove that there is dmg progression at stat levels similar to Ifrits Harpoon. If you looked at some of the dmg calculations, dmg was even higher on the lower dmg weapon than on Ifrits harpoon. Thus it is something that warrants further testing, and it is painfully clear that a lot of the old assumptions may not hold water anymore.

You know what they say about assuming after all. Its worth testing. One small test is already enough to raise eyebrows, so clinging to old data and making assumptions based on old data is just a silly way to go about anything.