Please stop with the "no duplicates" and pigeon-holing our DPS into tiny windows

[Mikki]

No, it's a good thing. Otherwise you would see people only wanting the strongest classes to play with them. You already see this to a small extent, lets not make it worse. For example, sometimes 1 of the 3 healers or tanks are "the worst" and no one wants those in their comp. So they will say "WHM and SCH only". I don't want the window of what's "acceptable" to get even smaller.

[Jonnycbad]

LB3 takes off 2, MAYBE 3% off of Byakko or any Savage fight. Hardly necessary unless you're getting <5% enrages. Also it's impossible to not get LB3 for Byakko EX with only 1 dupe for the section that you cheese through the tiger's AoE with Tank LB because the game gives you a bunch of free LB meter for handling various mechanics throughout the fight. Hell, you could get by with LB2, because the move barely takes off 10k HP with LB3, with LB2 it would hurt but be mostly survivable, especially with other mitigation.

[Nestama]

snip

So what you're saying is, Turn 2 enrage strat was exactly what the devs intended (which was an oversight). I feel they didn't fix it as it's a mistake they made and will own up to it by leaving it as it is (a reminder), but in the future making sure something like that will never happen again (which so far has not. I'm pretty sure every enrage after T5* does around 30k-999k). From what I can recall, there is no other hardcore raid that allows you to ignore every single mechanic like Turn 2.

*Turn 5's hard enrage (Twintania removes neurolinks and then does her explosion attack) does around 6000 damage (in the video I saw). Easily survivable in SB.

[JCharms]

While I understand this was designed to encourage greater class variety, it's also causing a lot of exclusion of popular classes.
Your thoughts?

I found it extremely hard to read on after that.

[ErryK]

There's a large difference between something being intended "intended" and "allowed for", or not strictly unintended.

Are we really arguing minutiae now in a situation where using game mechanics is unintended, especially considering the original post SPECIFICALLY mentioned that it was not unintended (ie. anything but intended)? There's a difference but this situation is not it. If they were using hacks, yeah I can see your point, but your point is lost because LB3 of any kind is a normal thing this game has as a mechanic.

[Bacent]

Hell, you could get by with LB2, because the move barely takes off 10k HP with LB3, with LB2 it would hurt but be mostly survivable, especially with other mitigation.

Tried it. People still died heavily. Only the tanks barely made it through.

[Claire_Pendragon]

LB3 is waaaay more potent than LB2.

Plus my groups barely survive with LB3, only having like 5%-10% of their HP with Lb3.

[Shurrikhan]

Are we really arguing minutiae now in a situation where using game mechanics is unintended, especially considering the original post SPECIFICALLY mentioned that it was not unintended (ie. anything but intended)? There's a difference but this situation is not it. If they were using hacks, yeah I can see your point, but your point is lost because LB3 of any kind is a normal thing this game has as a mechanic.

That's all any of this has been -- semantics. No one has ever suggested that it was the strat that the devs specifically wanted players to use. But for the mechanic to have been given damage equal to some 475% of the average eHP of a ranged at the minimum ilvl for the encounter, where less than 10% more damage would make LB3 unusable as a mechanical circumvention, stretches the idea the likelihood of coincidence. It seems to have been tailored as to "allow for" that strategy, even if was not the "intended" strategy.

Which I happen to very much like, as it does allow for creative use of the game's general mechanics. But, again, just 10% more damage and it would not have been an option. Someone almost certainly tuned to that.

To put it another way, it was likely an intended strategy, just not to be the leading option among them. It's NA predominance was unintended, not the strat itself.