Best bow for ARC/BRD

[Dzian]

Ifrit's Bow:- 102 damage 4.3 delay
Garuda's Spine:- 71 damage 3.1 delay

Going on my earlier mentioned parses and maths ifrits bows 4.3 delay = 13.95 light shots a minute so we'll say 14.

Garuda's Spine 3.1 delay = 19.35 lightshots a minute. mathmatically I should drop that to 19

Here's where the problems start.

Based on old parses and a few current ones while trying to go full dps for the short order moogle achieve (missed by seconds) with my ifrits bow in a ~10 minute fight I put out 226 shots. that equates to 22.6 shots a minute so I'll round it up to 23 hits a minute. Based on weapon delay and the maximum number of light shots in that time frame being 14 that means I put out 9 skills per minute over the course of a 10 minute fight.

Now if you assume a bard with garuda's spine has the exact same tp over time they should also put out 9 skills a minute over the course of a 10 minute fight which if added to there light shots should indicate a bard to be able to put out 28 shots a minute. Thus at the end of that fight resulting in about ~280 shots in total.

From what I've gathered from bards using the spine it just doesnt add up this way. There just isn't enough time to put out all these shots. If you're putting out those extra light shots then your skills are being used slower.

What it equates to is in that 5 or 6 second window you get between combos do you either ls > ls >ls or do you ls > gloom arrow > ls. There isnt time to do 3 ls and a gloom arrow before your combos start coming up. which basically means your doing a trade off.

What it boils down to is at the end of these 10 minute fights where brds using ifrits bow are putting out 22-23 shots a minute. bards using garudas bow are typically only putting out 22-24 shots a minute also and thus end up doing less damage. becuase 4-6 of there shots a minute never happen. If they try and maximise there light shots they sacrifice the number of skills so it seems to be a case of one or the other but you cant have both. Which is why I think alot of bards are sticking with the ifrits bow.

If you try and squeeze 2 ls between skills you end up slowing your combos down which ultimately means you do less of them and thus the only real time you have to put out those extra lightshots is between combos where alot of bards currently tend to burn there excess tp spamming gloom arrows, heavy shot or even rain of death if tp hits 3000. A quelling striked barrage will soon get your combo tp back up after emptying it on rain of death.

with my damage output/DPS increasing ever since obtaining and properly using Garuda's Spine.

I will say however, being that it is a lower delay bow, it requires more on-hands management and may have a bit of a learning curve. Like I said before, I made a Light Shot Macro to hit between weaponskills to keep the CD on LS without having to move across my action bar from LS to WS to LS... (gamepad).

Interesting point it could simply be a very different play style to optimise garuda's bow. but like you i have a light shot macro which i hit between every skill. one thing i notice is that you only refer to keeping ls on cd. are all your skills kept on cd to? inc gloom & heavy?

[NoctisUmbra]

Ifrit's Bow:- 102 damage 4.3 delay
Garuda's Spine:- 71 damage 3.1 delay

Going on my earlier mentioned parses and maths ifrits bows 4.3 delay = 13.95 light shots a minute so we'll say 14.

Garuda's Spine 3.1 delay = 19.35 lightshots a minute. mathmatically I should drop that to 19

Here's where the problems start.

Based on old parses and a few current ones while trying to go full dps for the short order moogle achieve (missed by seconds) with my ifrits bow in a ~10 minute fight I put out 226 shots. that equates to 22.6 shots a minute so I'll round it up to 23 hits a minute. Based on weapon delay and the maximum number of light shots in that time frame being 14 that means I put out 9 skills per minute over the course of a 10 minute fight.

Now if you assume a bard with garuda's spine has the exact same tp over time they should also put out 9 skills a minute over the course of a 10 minute fight which if added to there light shots should indicate a bard to be able to put out 28 shots a minute. Thus at the end of that fight resulting in about ~280 shots in total.

From what I've gathered from bards using the spine it just doesnt add up this way. There just isn't enough time to put out all these shots. If you're putting out those extra light shots then your skills are being used slower.

What it equates to is in that 5 or 6 second window you get between combos do you either ls > ls >ls or do you ls > gloom arrow > ls. There isnt time to do 3 ls and a gloom arrow before your combos start coming up. which basically means your doing a trade off.

What it boils down to is at the end of these 10 minute fights where brds using ifrits bow are putting out 22-23 shots a minute. bards using garudas bow are typically only putting out 22-24 shots a minute also and thus end up doing less damage. becuase 4-6 of there shots a minute never happen. If they try and maximise there light shots they sacrifice the number of skills so it seems to be a case of one or the other but you cant have both. Which is why I think alot of bards are sticking with the ifrits bow.

If you try and squeeze 2 ls between skills you end up slowing your combos down which ultimately means you do less of them and thus the only real time you have to put out those extra lightshots is between combos where alot of bards currently tend to burn there excess tp spamming gloom arrows, heavy shot or even rain of death if tp hits 3000. A quelling striked barrage will soon get your combo tp back up after emptying it on rain of death.


Interesting point it could simply be a very different play style to optimise garuda's bow. but like you i have a light shot macro which i hit between every skill. one thing i notice is that you only refer to keeping ls on cd. are all your skills kept on cd to? inc gloom & heavy?

A nice assessment. First to answer your question, yes I keep my WS on cooldown. In fact I find the more constant use of LS between skills via macro to help me on that end. While the TP gain may ultimately be the same, with a higher delay weapon one gains TP in chunks, whereas a lower delay weapon one gradually gains TP. This can help during those times when you're just 100 TP short of a WS, but have to wait 4.2s versus 3.1.

That all being said, this is where I feel an understanding of the game's mechanics as well as faults, particularly with server lag, come into play. Knowing you timed your LS macro between weapon skills with the confidence that it will fire off and go into cooldown while you move onto hit your next WS I find is the key. It can get tricky since you typically will not see the LS animation between WS if done correctly, and to add to that the LS icon goes into cooldown visually a bit after one hits it. This is with action queue on.

Although it is tougher to maintain DPS on a lower delay bow, even a higher delay one such as Ifrit's can have LS cooldowns missed or delayed for WS CDs and vice versa. Ultimately it boils down to the player's preference and skill.

I did the Garuda burn repeatedly - many of them as BRD using Ifrit's Bow. The Spine was my first drop, and that gave me ample time to sort of test it in the same fight environment and compare to my numbers with Ifrit's. I knew from the get-go I'd need a LS macro, being a pad user, to keep the CD on LS between weapon skills and so I went into my first fight using the Spine prepared. My DPS was not all that different though I had expected an increase due to what was found out about weapon DPS values. I had definitely missed some CDs and mistimed my LS and WSs though. After each fight I got consistently better and to this day still prefer the Spine.

I will say though, ultimately, a player who does not like to or cannot effectively deal with the high maintenance of the Spine will indeed put out more damage with Ifrit's Bow.

[Spider-Dan]

You say that, yet at this very moment on this very thread Ifrit's Bow is being weighed against Garuda's Spine despite the large difference in DPS.

Oh, you can weigh Ifrit against Garuda. You can also weigh Ifrit vs. Crab Bow if you really want to. That doesn't say anything about the results.

Also keep in mind if WS damage was based on Damage instead of DPS, there would never be any reason to use a low delay/dmg weapon due to the severely lacking WS hits.

Sure there is: any situation in which you either don't want to spam WS (due to some other factor in the fight, e.g. LNC vs. Ifrit) or a situation in which you are spamming auto-attack fast enough to take advantage of the extra DPS. That's why it's a tradeoff, as opposed to the current situation where higher DPS weapons are simply better, period.

There are hundreds of examples in FFXI of making choices between faster weapons vs. harder hitting weapons; bow vs. gun vs. crossbow was an ongoing debate among XI RNGs for years, and the faster weapons were by no means disqualified just because they had lower WS damage. In this game, the fastest weapons also hit the hardest on WS... no thought necessary.

[NoctisUmbra]

[QUOTE=Spider-Dan;699034]Oh, you can weigh Ifrit against Garuda. You can also weigh Ifrit vs. Crab Bow if you really want to. That doesn't say anything about the results.[/quest]

Are you even reading. The results are that they have comparable damage output and some even saying Ifrit's performs better. Instead of arguing here you're welcome to test the difference yourself and make up your own mind.

Sure there is: any situation in which you either don't want to spam WS (due to some other factor in the fight, e.g. LNC vs. Ifrit) or a situation in which you are spamming auto-attack fast enough to take advantage of the extra DPS. That's why it's a tradeoff, as opposed to the current situation where higher DPS weapons are simply better, period.

There are hundreds of examples in FFXI of making choices between faster weapons vs. harder hitting weapons; bow vs. gun vs. crossbow was an ongoing debate among XI RNGs for years, and the faster weapons were by no means disqualified just because they had lower WS damage. In this game, the fastest weapons also hit the hardest on WS... no thought necessary.

XI is a different game Spidey. From what I recall TP generation was in fact different based on the attack delay of weapons. That's a game changer. In XIV that is not the case. If TP generation changed with delay, then there would be a trade-off to speak of with WS damage being based on Damage. Since that is not the case, DPS makes sense.

Also your example use for it makes little sense to me. In Ifrit or whatever fight you are in for where AA damage or WS damage matters more you'd still want a high DPS weapon. DPS is important for AA damage just as much as for WS damage. That's the point. For WS it's a direct value to tell you how strong the base damage of your WS will be, whereas for AA it's a measure of how much damage you'll be doing over time. I wouldn't chose a low Damage weapon with low delay for Ifrit just because it has low delay. If the Damage value is shit each AA hits like a wet noodle anyway. I'd chose a weapon with the highest DPS so that over time I'm putting out more... you guessed it.. DPS.

[Spider-Dan]

Are you even reading. The results are that they have comparable damage output and some even saying Ifrit's performs better.

I have yet to see any actual data on the comparison.

Furthermore, I can post up plenty of parses of me beating Ifrit users with a melded Crab Bow+1 (back in 1.20). Does this mean that Crab+1 was arguably better than Ifrit back then?

From what I recall TP generation was in fact different based on the attack delay of weapons.

TP generation is different based on the attack delay of weapons in XIV, so I don't see your point.

You can argue that the curve is more linear in XIV than in XI (and that's true), but in no way does that mean that DPS was somehow devalued in XI; it just meant that certain weapon+gear builds needed to be optimized for the specific number of hits to reach 100 TP (for a WS). And when you get right down to it, XIV has the same issue: a weapon that returns 500 TP per hit is superior (from a TP generation standpoint) to one that returns 550 or 450, because you reach 1000 TP in exactly two rounds (instead of 3 rounds like a 450 TP weapon), and you do so more quickly than a 550 TP weapon (which has longer delay).

All of the above are nuanced factors that come into play when evaluating light/fast vs. heavy/slow weapons. However, in XIV, the light/fast weapons are also the heaviest when it comes to WS. That unbalances the comparison.

In Ifrit or whatever fight you are in for where AA damage or WS damage matters more you'd still want a high DPS weapon. DPS is important for AA damage just as much as for WS damage. That's the point.

Yes, that is the point: in a fight like LNC vs. Ifrit (even if WS is based on DMG), a high DPS weapon will be preferable because the vast majority of your damage is coming from autoattack. Again, that's a tradeoff that is not present in the current system. In the current system, if you need a weapon that has strong autoattack damage output, you find something with good DPS, and if you need a weapon that hits hard on WS, you find... the exact same weapon. The tradeoff doesn't exist.

[Geo]

Who cares? All you do is sing (cast) songs...poop DD

[StianGold]

Maybe Ifrit bow and garuda spine. In 1.21 was ifrit bow best now it is sarga for archers and garuda spine for bards

[StianGold]

Sarga are a wery good bow. a think a will use Sarga bow to kill Ifrit >) I think Garuda bow and ifrit bow are best. Moogle bow are good but not better ifrit and garuda bow/spine.

[Geo]

wtf lol....

[NoctisUmbra]

I have yet to see any actual data on the comparison.

Furthermore, I can post up plenty of parses of me beating Ifrit users with a melded Crab Bow+1 (back in 1.20). Does this mean that Crab+1 was arguably better than Ifrit back then?


TP generation is different based on the attack delay of weapons in XIV, so I don't see your point.

You can argue that the curve is more linear in XIV than in XI (and that's true), but in no way does that mean that DPS was somehow devalued in XI; it just meant that certain weapon+gear builds needed to be optimized for the specific number of hits to reach 100 TP (for a WS). And when you get right down to it, XIV has the same issue: a weapon that returns 500 TP per hit is superior (from a TP generation standpoint) to one that returns 550 or 450, because you reach 1000 TP in exactly two rounds (instead of 3 rounds like a 450 TP weapon), and you do so more quickly than a 550 TP weapon (which has longer delay).

All of the above are nuanced factors that come into play when evaluating light/fast vs. heavy/slow weapons. However, in XIV, the light/fast weapons are also the heaviest when it comes to WS. That unbalances the comparison.


Yes, that is the point: in a fight like LNC vs. Ifrit (even if WS is based on DMG), a high DPS weapon will be preferable because the vast majority of your damage is coming from autoattack. Again, that's a tradeoff that is not present in the current system. In the current system, if you need a weapon that has strong autoattack damage output, you find something with good DPS, and if you need a weapon that hits hard on WS, you find... the exact same weapon. The tradeoff doesn't exist.

It's not whether you beat others using ifrits bow while you use crab bow. That's not a controlled test and is irrelevant as it brings player skill differences into question, which is a variable you cannot control. The question is what kind of damage do you put out with the Spine and what kind of damage do you put out with ifrits. Simple as that.

Also in XIV TP generation is ultimately the same regardless of DPS or attack delay. Lower delay hits generate less TP and higher delay hits generate more TP, and yes it is very linear meaning that as far as TP is concerned delay is irrelevant.

A higher DPS weapon almost always being superior is perfectly fine so long as they don't throw DPS values of weapons all over the place for same level weapons. Some weapons will always be superior. The difference is one can chose the delay of their weapon among similar DPS weapons based on their style and what works best for them. If WS damage was based on the Damage stat higher Damage would be the superior choice for every scenario. Period. No choice at all. Lower damage weapon would always translate to lower numbers on the parse at the end. WS are not kept in check by anything other than TP generation and their own cooldowns, neither of which are based on DPS or delay. So higher damage would always win, which again offers less flexibility than higher DPS always winning.

That all being said, in the case of archer it seems higher DPS doesn't always win. It increases the difficulty in maintaining cooldowns.