Concept for a Magic Melee DPS

[Wayfinder3]

Effectively these are just differing perspectives on the history of the game. What your saying makes a lot of sense. I dont deny that, but your reasons are all assumptions based on events, not facts (like the one concerning the changes to the duty finder)

So I get what your saying, and see that it is understandable, but i read into those same events in the history of the game with different reasoning and come to a different conclusion. At the end of the day its what the developers want and choose to design. But for me personally both raid design and health of the game has me desire an equal 4 ranged 4 melee party comp. Regardless of damage or utility or utility that just adds damage of each role type.

I mean, these aren't perspectives, Dragoon and Ninja are the 2 melee you're referring to that have always taken up the 2 melee slots and thats clearly attributed to the utility they had. the first time this was challenged in patch 4.4, it was proven that there was no disadvantage or punishment for doing 1 melee 1 ranged and 2 casters. these aren't perspectives, this is literally how the game has always been. FFXIV has a meta and it's very easy to look back and see trends as to why things they way they were. you're claiming that this game was designed with a specific comp in mind, despite that not being endorsed officially until 3.3 when the raid finder was implemented. duty finder has never required a specific comp to this day beyond having 1/2 tanks, 2 healers, and 4/5 dps. you can go look at older patch notes for mid heavensward to see what im referring to regarding the raid finder and to this day, the duty finder doesn't require 2 melee.

on the subject of fight design, this also isn't true. the fights are designed to accommodate 4 jobs in melee range but i'd argue only 3 of those are required to be to melee jobs (2 tanks and 1 melee) that 4th puddle can go to a caster to help them keep up cast and reduce movement and this is what would happen if you brought 2 ranged 1 caster and 1 melee or even 2 casters, 1 ranged, and 1 melee. my point here is that accommodating something and determining what something is design specifically for aren't the same thing, you can't say that having 8 puddles, 4 of which are in melee range are designed that way because the devs WANT you to have 2 melee, you can say that they are designed that way INCASE you brought 2 melee. You can do puddles in E2s without a melee, just put a ranged in a melee spot. the reason 4 spots are in melee range is so groups that wanted to take a 2nd melee wouldn't be completely boned by cucking their tanks.

Even if i were to meet you half way and say that this is my own reasoning. you also can't dismiss katies position by using your own perspective as fact, but then tell me my different perspective is just my interpretation. either my interpretation is the right one and most expert players will reach the same conclusion as i have, or both of our perspectives are logical reasoning by which you can't use either to refute katie. you're going to need something more concrete than your personal feelings on what the health of the game should be when we're talking about the growth of something that has already happened and calming it as fact.

[Vendalwind]

Man here I was ready to let this one go. but oh well time to argue.

I mean, these aren't perspectives,

Yes. Yes they are, and by stating thats how i viewed Katie's perspectives I thought it was pretty clear I meant for mine to viewed the same way. IN FACT i said it:

Effectively these are just differing perspectives on the history of the game.

Dragoon and Ninja are the 2 melee you're referring to that have always taken up the 2 melee slots and thats clearly attributed to the utility they had.

False on two counts. MONK didn't begin with utility, and actually I'm referring to the ORIGINAL CAST. which btw didn't have NIN. NIN wasn't implemented till 2.4

the first time this was challenged in patch 4.4, it was proven that there was no disadvantage or punishment for doing 1 melee 1 ranged and 2 casters. these aren't perspectives, this is literally how the game has always been. FFXIV has a meta and it's very easy to look back and see trends as to why things they way they were. you're claiming that this game was designed with a specific comp in mind, despite that not being endorsed officially until 3.3 when the raid finder was implemented. duty finder has never required a specific comp to this day beyond having 1/2 tanks, 2 healers, and 4/5 dps. you can go look at older patch notes for mid heavensward to see what im referring to regarding the raid finder and to this day, the duty finder doesn't require 2 melee.

Again wrong on a few counts. First It absolutely was challenged pre 4.4 because meta comps aren't what im talking about. Meta is one thing, Im talking about fight design, and general party comp. Not cherry picking the single perfect setup. The game has had, and still has very glaring balance flaws. That doesn't mean it was "designed" with the meta comp in mind. In fact mentioning previous meta comps is literally entirely in consequential to the subject at hand.

And of COURSE the duty finders weren't locked to two melees. cause that way more options and freedom is enabled and people can play around with other comps, makes the game more fun and more customizable and free, but again the state of the party finders and their imposed limitations has no correlation to the games intended raid design and party comp design. (note it was also made that way to aid wait times)

on the subject of fight design, this also isn't true. the fights are designed to accommodate 4 jobs in melee range but i'd argue only 3 of those are required to be to melee jobs (2 tanks and 1 melee) that 4th puddle can go to a caster to help them keep up cast and reduce movement and this is what would happen if you brought 2 ranged 1 caster and 1 melee or even 2 casters, 1 ranged, and 1 melee. my point here is that accommodating something and determining what something is design specifically for aren't the same thing, you can't say that having 8 puddles, 4 of which are in melee range are designed that way because the devs WANT you to have 2 melee, you can say that they are designed that way INCASE you brought 2 melee. You can do puddles in E2s without a melee, just put a ranged in a melee spot. the reason 4 spots are in melee range is so groups that wanted to take a 2nd melee wouldn't be completely boned by cucking their tanks.

You literally just proved my point but just offered a differing perspective. Here let me go through the exact same order of analysis you did but conclude different things at each step with a different couple pieces of anecdotal evidence:

The fights are designed to accommodate 4 jobs in melee range so I'd argue the fights are designed with 4 melee specifically in mind. However of those 2 melee spots other classes could be used because they can stand wherever. If it was designed SPECIFICALLY so that two melee could be brought then it was literally designed FOR TWO MELEE, regardless of whether you think the Dev's wanted 2 melee as the standard comp. In titan the boss attack zone and area are specifically built so that even if half the stage is gone melee can still fight. That is melee design in mind during the party splits N/S. During Leviathan the party is split in two, and each side accommodates one melee and needs one ranged for black smokers. But using your logic since 4 melee can technically do black smokers I guess that part of the fight wasn't designed with two ranged specifically in mind? I would argue that it was designed ABSOLUTELY for 2 ranged and two melee. And on your puddles from E2 again using your logic I guess the fights design is such that no melee are needed at all? cause your right. Technically every single mechanic can be done even with 4 melee, and even easier with 4 ranged, but the fights are absolutely made with 2 melee slots in mind. This is very true of old raid tiers as well.

It's not "INCASE" you brought 2 melee. its designed that way FOR 2 melee. See how thats a perspective? I very seldom argue with objective fact, because very few things outside of rough quantitative analysis are fact. I NEVER declared my arguments as fact, and the only things that you should read that way are the numbers moments such as the ratios. Historical analysis is ALWAYS a perspective. ALWAYS.

Even if i were to meet you half way and say that this is my own reasoning. you also can't dismiss katies position by using your own perspective as fact,

I literally did not do what you say i did above.

but then tell me my different perspective is just my interpretation.

SIGH I literally said, and i'll quote the exact same moment again

Effectively these are just differing perspectives on the history of the game.

THESE. I SAID THESE. I MEANT MINE TOO. you are the one trying to spit out things as "fact" and shut down other opinions. this bigheaded close minded belligerence prevents growth and any chance of compromise being met. If you can't relax and compromise there is no point in even discussing things with you. The general pattern of forum arguing where people ignore opponents true points and ONLY attack small discrepancies or weakness is unhealthy discourse. Instead people like to continue to bring up piles of information and just ignore the othersides information. Its bad.

You had good points. I SAID that, but your points are not the only conclusions that can be reached from the evidence you provided. I didn't combat them at the time, because to me it didn't matter, I was sufficiently satisfied with my understanding that your perspective is backed up too. But since you continue to try to falsely trash my arguments I now continue with yours:

either my interpretation is the right one and most expert players will reach the same conclusion as i have, or both of our perspectives are logical reasoning by which you can't use either to refute katie.

Or my original interpretation is right? HMMM? Because mine most certainly was logical reasoning too.
Logic as used in english is not so clean as it is in computer science, because the logic often tries to force connectives of contextuals.
This is nto a black and white issue, but you are trying to assign it binary conclusive results.
It's also possible both of our interpretations are right at different moments and some designers leaned one way, and other leaned the other.

you're going to need something more concrete than your personal feelings on what the health of the game should be when we're talking about the growth of something that has already happened and calming it as fact.

Again.... I didn't claim it as fact.
Also everything you have said has been BASED PRIMARILY ON YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS. for moments when we didn't base arguments on feelings please refer to the ratios i provided and the link to logs you provided. the rest was anecdotal events or moments analyzed with feelings on the subject and event in question.