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

[Fynlar]

Thats not proof they intended you to use it.

That just increased the likelyhood of it, before we found out what they said.

I'm not saying that they intended us to use it.

I'm saying that if it were UNINTENDED, they would have made the tiger 1-shot if ignored (or they would have patched it to make it such after it was discovered).

What I'm trying to say is that anyone who's calling the tank LB3 strat unintended (or worse, calling it an exploit) is full of it, because all the evidence left in the game points to otherwise.

[ErryK]

What I'm trying to say is that anyone who's calling the tank LB3 strat unintended (or worse, calling it an exploit) is full of it, because all the evidence left in the game points to otherwise.

Lmao. The devs themselves said it was unintended, so are the devs full of it when they didn't see precedent for it? It's not even an enrage, soft or hard. It's a DPS check, you don't meet it, you don't kill the boss.

Dude, just stop and get off your high horse.

[Nestama]

I'm not saying that they intended us to use it.

I'm saying that if it were UNINTENDED, they would have made the tiger 1-shot if ignored (or they would have patched it to make it such after it was discovered).

What I'm trying to say is that anyone who's calling the tank LB3 strat unintended (or worse, calling it an exploit) is full of it, because all the evidence left in the game points to otherwise.

To which I (again) say Turn 2 Enrage strategy. When a boss enrages, normally the raid wipes and you have to start over. Not the case with Turn 2. ADS' enrage is survivable, but it requires constant AoE healing. This was clearly not what the devs intended, as it completely negates all mechanics of a fight (not dealing with Allagan Rot being the biggest reason why people did it). Despite this, they never fixed the enrage (and as said before, they had to unfix it when a patch made it impossible to do the enrage strat).

[Fynlar]

Lmao. The devs themselves said it was unintended, so are the devs full of it when they didn't see precedent for it?

Saying the tank LB strategy was unintended when it clearly lets you survive an ignored mechanic (and isn't being addressed/fixed) makes about as much sense as saying it was unintended for FFXI NINs to be able to tank after giving them an ability that lets them completely avoid attacks. What did they THINK was going to happen there? It isn't fooling anybody, certainly not me.

So yes, I'm saying anyone who is calling this unintended is full of it.

It's not even an enrage, soft or hard. It's a DPS check, you don't meet it, you don't kill the boss.

Except it isn't a DPS check at all because the DPS can completely ignore it and you can very much still kill the boss.

To which I (again) say Turn 2 Enrage strategy. When a boss enrages, normally the raid wipes and you have to start over. Not the case with Turn 2. ADS' enrage is survivable, but it requires constant AoE healing. This was clearly not what the devs intended, as it completely negates all mechanics of a fight (not dealing with Allagan Rot being the biggest reason why people did it). Despite this, they never fixed the enrage (and as said before, they had to unfix it when a patch made it impossible to do the enrage strat).

You're only proving my point.

If that approach were unintended, they'd have made it such that running out of time in turn 2 would just instantly wipe you like it would in any other fight with an enrage. Yet as you say yourself, that isn't how it works (and as I've pointed out already, Coil was *no stranger whatsoever* to mechanics that would just flat out instantly kill individuals/parties for failing them, so the fact that they diverted from that here is notable). Same deal with the tank LB3 on Byakko.

[ErryK]

So yes, I'm saying anyone who is calling this unintended is full of it.

:|

Except it isn't a DPS check at all because it can be completely ignored and you can very much still kill the boss.

Tried doing that without tank LB3? Oh wait, that's right, it's "intended" to do it with tank LB3, my mistake.

If that approach were unintended, they'd have made it such that running out of time in turn 2 would just instantly wipe you like it would in any other fight with an enrage.

T2 enrage strat was unintended, and was a side effect of overgearing the content. You're forgetting that T2 enrage strat only picked up when a lot of people were in i90, 20 item levels above the recommended.

[Shurrikhan]

Tried doing that without tank LB3? Oh wait, that's right, it's "intended" to do it with tank LB3, my mistake.

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

T2 enrage strat was unintended, and was a side effect of overgearing the content. You're forgetting that T2 enrage strat only picked up when a lot of people were in i90, 20 item levels above the recommended.

People just ran triple-healer until gear was enough, well before even full myth gear.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fynlar]

Tried doing that without tank LB3? Oh wait, that's right, it's "intended" to do it with tank LB3, my mistake.

A DPS check, last I heard, tests the DPS of the party. Please explain to me how it's still a DPS check when a defensive tank action can bypass it?