Quote Originally Posted by HyoMinPark View Post
snip
the problem with the kind of balancing where you keep the physical ranged inheritely weaker (as people have argued in this thread you would literally never take a second melee if the physical ranged pulled ahead by even a 100 dps in 2 out of 4 fights while falling behind in the others, which i highly doubt, theres more than enough reason to take 1 melee, the second while not necessarely usefull also is hardly a liability on the group at that point where you allready took the first one.) and why i say brd in fact being weaker than double caster comps (ultimate again notwithstanding, bard may very well even be overpowered there, but thats really on the fight design and could be fixed even while buffing bard single target) is a a role problem, not a bard problem is this:

no role will ever be perfectly balanced, even in itself, if you argue physical ranged need even just a 300 dps tax on the melees that would mean 300 dps on the weakest melee,(again dps buffs are just that, raid dps, so no real reason samurai has to be above say ninja and also no reason why mch should be measured against samurai while bard should measure against nin for example) which would in turn mean 800 on the strongest. also even if the physical ranged where in the range of 200 dps to each other that would still leave the weakest physical 1000 dps short, you literally can't balance them closer than that if you argue for a general ranged tax unless you get everyone even closer together, which obviously would allways be the goal, but at a certain point indeed not realistic anymore, thats why this approach doesn't work, and in fact bends over the role backwards right now, its not just "mch is dealing worse dps than ninja" its "mch is 'missing' 500 dps more on samurai than it is on ninja, and bard is lacking another 400",




you simply cant correctly balance a whole role as "weaker than another role",to do this you would either allready start at 2-3% from the top (what the weakest melee is missing on the strongest) on which you then add another 2-3% (anything less and people that aren't happy now will just cry "margin of error") so it is indeed weaker instead of just "equal to the weaker links in the role" while than having general role imbalances of 3-5% on top of that which basically leaves us where we are now

or

you balance the ranged role from the top (so samurai right now) and take say 3% from that. at this point the weakest class would still be 5-6% short of the top even if the role in itself gets closer together (so a good ~800 dps) which would end up in a situation where (lets just say the relative strength within the group stays as is) bard would be where mch is now, which generally is seen as the "strongest of the most definitely still pretty weak" group, so way better than now, but still not a position a class should be in, whereas mch would allready reach the point where the people that now argue no one would ever take a second melee if theres any chance would cry about mch making ninja obsolete because on one out of 4 fights mch actually deals 20 dps more than nin on the 95% percentile.

if you generally agree they need to be taxed on a level where even on a heavy movement fight they lose out to melees than at least part of that role will allways end up at a level that is in fact very much underpowered, yet this notion was bought forward more than once, and (again, taking the whole picture, i.e. this thread into account) as you not once disagreed with that side but only picked apart any tiniest detail of people saying the role is too weak in general even if you agreed they are too weak as is than this is something which i at least would say is something to argue about, after all the whole idea of a forum aside from collecting and sharing ideas is to actually exchange arguments. So yes, i very much argue that even if its just bard that falls short it indeed is a role issue that makes this happen.