Massive fail by Matsui - telling melee range to suck it up for not getting invites

[SAMINUS]

I still don't understand why Archers get the distance safety net along with overly powered attacks. wtf SE

[Rinsui]

Hey, has anyone figured out the passage where Matsui tells melee range to suck it up for not getting invites yet?

[BloodLotus]

A simple solution to this though (If you are in a good LS they will let you come as melee anyway) is to just prove that you're friggin amazing at your class.

Even if that simply means not dying. I've beaten the Ogre once and next time I'm gonna try stabbing the crap outta him with my lance.

I know it would be both a good and bad thing, but I think I'd like to find a dps meter that would tell me how well I'm doing with my class... aside from not dying ^^.

I still don't understand why Archers get the distance safety net along with overly powered attacks. wtf SE

Can't really say they're overpowered because we don't really know how much damage they do compared to other classes. Their only obvious benefit is that they don't die unless they pull hate during the Ogre encounter... and that's why people bring them instead of melee.

[Verecund]

They need to either design fights to counter over-stacking or have something unique and valuable that class or role can bring to the fight (they should probably do this through traits). Or they can go the easy route and add an enrage timer to balance for (which I don't particularly favor :P )

Sadly, if their future designs have these flaws it will no doubt end up in more exploitation and trivialization.

[Zkieve]

They need to either design fights to counter over-stacking or have something unique and valuable that non-tank melees can bring to the fight (they should probably do this through traits). Or they can go the easy route and add an enrage timer to balance for (which I don't particularly favor :P )

Sadly, if their future designs have these flaws it will no doubt end up in more exploitation and trivialization.

This is infact what i most loved about ffxi, even if people want to say there was preferenced clases only .

[Reika]

They need to either design fights to counter over-stacking or have something unique and valuable that class or role can bring to the fight (they should probably do this through traits). Or they can go the easy route and add an enrage timer to balance for (which I don't particularly favor :P )

Sadly, if their future designs have these flaws it will no doubt end up in more exploitation and trivialization.

Monsters that deal more with the currently useless weapon affinities would help. Monsters weaker to Slashing/Blunt/Piercing/Projectile, or more resistant.

I half expect them to just abolish weapon affinities tho...

[Preypacer]

They need to either design fights to counter over-stacking or have something unique and valuable that class or role can bring to the fight (they should probably do this through traits). Or they can go the easy route and add an enrage timer to balance for (which I don't particularly favor :P )

Sadly, if their future designs have these flaws it will no doubt end up in more exploitation and trivialization.

I was thinking of this earlier... What are ways that a fight can be created so as every type of role is helpful/useful and none need be left out in favor of "an optimal build", because having each role present - whatever the specific classes/jobs - *would* be the optimal approach.

Give every class/job a role to play in a given fight, and no one will have to be arbitrarily left out.

One example could be the necessity of close-up DD'ers to do some kind of specific damage to the mob which then weakens its defense against ranged DD... Or ranged (archers) using specific attacks to blind it temporarily so its accuracy is greatly reduced for a time; mob can't hit you if it can't see you. Or, perhaps have mages use certain spells at certain points in the fight to lower its resistance to certain types of attacks by all DD, ranged or otherwise,,etc. etc.

There could be a phase where the direct DD'ers aren't even really doing any damage to the boss themself, but are inflicting some kind of status or interrupt on it through their attacks which enable the mages to do their job more effectively... This way, they're still important in the fight, and it really doesn't matter if you're a PGL a LNC or even a RNG character... you can fulfill that role.

And to keep it from getting repetitive and boring, have the fight change up through different stages where each role is given a different task to fulfill in helping to bring it down. Instead of it following the same phases in sequential order, fight after fight, have it randomly phase from one to another and so the players have to be on their toes and pay attention when it happens.

There could be more strategy in terms of weakening the boss's defense/offense in order to decrease its damage and increase the damage it takes (besides debuff spells), instead of it being about "using the optimal party setup to do the most DD in order to kill it as quickly as possible". Devise ways that the fight is handled indirectly, instead of always through straight, direct damage dealing.

Remember how in Promyvions in XI, you had the different Animas that could be used at different points int he fight to help influence the boss's behavior? Something along those lines... but not exactly in that way.

This way, every role is important and every class has a use.

[Rinsui]

Something like a bonus for the diversity of party composition would be nice, yes. Like a special buff unique to each job that does not stack with the same bonus from another player...

[Sigtyr]

The reason why Archers are chosen over Melee is quite simple.

Archer do just as much, if not more, damage than melee, without having to interrupt themselves to avoid AoE or put themselves at risk of being struck by said AoE. I've learned that the best place for a non-gladiator melee was on the sides of the Void Slave, however with Inferno drop, you still need to stop DPSing and move out of it's range. Archers have just as much reward as melee with none of the risk. Neither the dungeons, nor the archers need nerfs, melee classes have to be given buffs, to match the amount of risk associated with being on the front lines.

[VydarrTyr]

The reason why Archers are chosen over Melee is quite simple.

Archer do just as much, if not more, damage than melee, without having to interrupt themselves to avoid AoE or put themselves at risk of being struck by said AoE. I've learned that the best place for a non-gladiator melee was on the sides of the Void Slave, however with Inferno drop, you still need to stop DPSing and move out of it's range. Archers have just as much reward as melee with none of the risk. Neither the dungeons, nor the archers need nerfs, melee classes have to be given buffs, to match the amount of risk associated with being on the front lines.

Aye, there's the rub.

The issue is not whether it's possible to run the dungeons with close-range DPS. As Blood Lotus and others have shown, it absolutely is possible. The issue is whether it's practical to do so. And as long as it's easier to run the dungeons with Arcs -- and I think we can all agree that it is -- then Arcs will be relatively more valuable.

Like Sigtyr said, the problem is that Arcs are inherently superior to other melee DPS. They can stand somewhere so that they can damage the mob, but do not suffer any damage themselves. And with vastly increased MP costs from heals, and changed enmity algorithms, it's simply impractical to cure entire parties that are suffering damage.

So the issue becomes, how do you balance encounters so that parties need close-range melee?

1) Make mobs resistant to piercing damage. But that's also going to hurt Lancers, which we don't want to do.

2) Put fights in confined areas, so that the mob's attacks hit everyone. But that's going to kill off the healers faster than the Arcs, and we don't want that.

3) Give the mob a donut-shaped attack (like Iron Tempest), so that it hits party members far away, but not up close. But again, that's going to wipe out the healers faster than the Arcs.

4) Spawn mobs that attack ranged party members. I think this is what SE was doing with the ghosts -- which are mostly positioned away from the Ogre -- and with the skeletons -- which spawn away from 2nd boss and attack from the outside in, hitting ranged attackers first. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have worked, since Arcs aren't actually at a disadvantage to other melee in those encounters.

5) Nerf the bosses' attacks. This may be the worst of all worlds. Because it might work, but only because the fights would be so easy that no one would care who was included in the party. Let's hope they don't remove strategy to be more all-inclusive.

6) Reduce MP costs and enmity generation from heals. Again, it would only work because the fights would become easier, so no one would care who was included in the party. Perfectly balanced classes are nice, but it's not worth much if the gameplay isn't fun and challenging.

7) Nerf Arcs/Make everyone else stronger. Not the most attractive solution. I think we all hate the idea of nerfing any classes. Every class should be fun to play.

So what's the answer? Hell, I don't know. Maybe a donut-shaped "darkness/blindness" spell that hits ranged attackers? Put up magic barriers around the mob, so that ranged attackers have to periodically activate nodes to lower the barriers and resume ranged attacks? But those just seem like indirect nerfs of Arcs, and do not address the fundamental imbalance.

I don't think the current system is broken. In fact, it works, and I'm having a ton of fun with it. And I think the OP's title is inaccurate and inflammatory. (If anything, Matsui said the opposite of what the OP's title is implying.) But I'll be danged if I can figure out a simple solution to balancing ranged DPS.