Thread: 5.08 Patch Notes up

Originally Posted by Duskane

uuhhh are you looking at the pre 5.08 when nin is near the bottom and not after 5.08 when nin is above SAM?

I looked at both. that's why i added they were pretty even afterwards. Sorry.

At least SAM is still easier to play than NIN.

edit: with that said i do wonder how they will balance things now. Is it going to be based off utility for the party or personal difficulty playing the class? because utility wise NIN should be lower than SAM but personal difficulty wise NIN should be doing more dmg than SAM. After all if you're picking a more difficult class people like to be rewarded for their efforts.

It just want to see more NINs and SAMs around. I'm getting fed up of seeing the same jobs everywhere.

Originally Posted by Duskane

Incoming healer rage

Originally Posted by Duskane

not sure if 100% and tell me if its wrong but SAM being worst melee DPS is big oof

Originally Posted by xxvaynxx

Seems about right where SE wants us.
I'm going to stay samurai because its fun but I given up SE actually giving samurai the dps its suppose to have.

(not direct reply)

Originally Posted by Duskane

uuhhh are you looking at the pre 5.08 when nin is near the bottom and not after 5.08 when nin is above SAM?

Ummm... incoming dps rage?

Originally Posted by RadicalPesto

FFlogs counts raid buffs as part of the DPS of the job giving the buffs rather than the one receiving them now. In effect all jobs in that list are under the same circumstances.

That is an improvement, but since logs are anonymous and this data is from all logs posted, it is neither accurate enough to assess how the whole playerbase is doing nor how players of equal skill do against one another. E.g. If there were 200 Samurai logs posted and 100 Dragoon logs posted, and half of the Samurai logs were of poor optimization and only 30 of the Dragoon logs were of similar poor performance, it would make Samurai look worse than it is. Since there is no curation in FF logs for this by its anonymous upload system and these results are just taking in account all logs posted, that alone is more than enough to make the results unreliable.

As much of a pain it might be, you'd need to individually test each class with all other classes being the same in the test groups, and with the same players for the other classes present, and the players of each comparative class being compared against one another would need to be of similar skill (there would need to be a good way to assess this such as player's performance vs. theoretical max performance). You'd then, with this dedicated team, in both variations, do all end game content multiple times, and then take the avg. of those results. That is as close to accurate as we could get as players. Square likely has access to tools to get even more accurate results though, if they would take the time to test things on their end (it's possible that they have).

Originally Posted by Yandere-chan

That is an improvement, but since logs are anonymous and this data is from all logs posted, it is neither accurate enough to assess how the whole playerbase is doing nor how players of equal skill do against one another. E.g. If there were 200 Samurai logs posted and 100 Dragoon logs posted, and half of the Samurai logs were of poor optimization and only 30 of the Dragoon logs were of similar poor performance, it would make Samurai look worse than it is. Since there is no curation in FF logs for this by its anonymous upload system and these results are just taking in account all logs posted, that alone is more than enough to make the results unreliable.

As much of a pain it might be, you'd need to individually test each class with all other classes being the same in the test groups, and with the same players for the other classes present, and the players of each comparative class being compared against one another would need to be of similar skill (there would need to be a good way to assess this such as player's performance vs. theoretical max performance). You'd then, with this dedicated team, in both variations, do all end game content multiple times, and then take the avg. of those results. That is as close to accurate as we could get as players. Square likely has access to tools to get even more accurate results though, if they would take the time to test things on their end (it's possible that they have).

That isn't how statistics work. Once you reach a large enough sample size, it doesn't matter. The average will more or less remain the same. Since we have several thousand uploads for every job, this threshold has already been met. What you see on FFlogs is roughly accurate representation of each jobs' output. rDPS is far from a perfect metric but remains efficient. Additionally, FFlogs allows you to partition based on percentile. Therefore, a 95% Dragoon will only be compared against a 95% Bard. And in every single instance, they will absolutely dominant them.