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



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


*squints eyes* I don't know... I see NIN all the way down there. Granted we'll see how the theory will hold up after the buffs. They seem to be pretty even which kinda of makes me facepalm. *sigh*
edit: fight design and all that.
Last edited by Schan; 08-29-2019 at 07:03 PM.


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.
Last edited by Schan; 08-29-2019 at 07:10 PM.
(not direct reply)
Ummm... incoming dps rage?
Last edited by Hatstand; 08-29-2019 at 08:00 PM.
This shows how awful the balance is. Why are summoner and red mage 1,2k and 1.5k RDPS behind BLM? Assuming a optimal use of their raidbuffs their rdps should be slightly higher then the selfish dps of a blm. Then you can take a way a few hundred dps for their raise and have summoner 200-300 and rdm 300-500 behind black mage in rdps. But the current gap is just ridiculous.

Using FFlogs as a basis isn't scientific at all. FFLogs has no control group. The perceived meta classes will be played more by the top cut of players and receive more stacked buffs exaggerating any difference that may exist in either direction. Or, what is more likely, there may just happen to be by chance more worse players/groups with certain roles than others. There is litterally no control. It's just random logs posted by a small % of the playerbase. This is no basis for Square to make any adjustments over. Square needs to look at very specific test instances where every player is of equal relative skill and look at each class with the same exact number of external buffs being applied to them. Anything less than that is not accurate at all, and even that has room for error.
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.Using FFlogs as a basis isn't scientific at all. FFLogs has no control group. The perceived meta classes will be played more by the top cut of players and receive more stacked buffs exaggerating any difference that may exist in either direction. Or, what is more likely, there may just happen to be by chance more worse players/groups with certain roles than others. There is litterally no control. It's just random logs posted by a small % of the playerbase. This is no basis for Square to make any adjustments over. Square needs to look at very specific test instances where every player is of equal relative skill and look at each class with the same exact number of external buffs being applied to them. Anything less than that is not accurate at all, and even that has room for error.

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).
Last edited by Yandere-chan; 08-31-2019 at 09:30 AM.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.

Reply With Quote





